>> john: thank you, turk. good evening. is president obama being rash and impulsive by rapidly withdrawing troops from afghanistan. over ten years after the war started? also, edward snowden has released a tape showing his vicious dissatisfaction with american intelligence system and the equality of the moscow airport cinnabon. and it turns out one of rand paul's advisers has a history of successionist racism. it is shock. only one of them. oh and one more thing. rupert murdoch made self-incriminating comments on a tape but for some mysterious reason, none of the news corp. companies is reporting it. today is the birthday of

courtney love, jodi arias and o.j. simpson. hard to believe only two of those people are in jail. today is the first full day of ramadan which i'm sure will lead to many bill o'reilly rants about the war on ramadan. this is "viewpoint." >> john: good evening, i'm john fuglesang. this is "viewpoint." thank you so much for joining us tonight. american presidents who have won second terms often focus on foreign policy, not least because it is one area where they can really polish their legacies without too much interference especially from congress. but president barack obama is getting plenty of foreign policy pushback this week. in egypt muslim brotherhood protestors are demanding the army reverse itself and return morsi to office. the military-backed interim

government responded by announcing a six-month timetable to new elections and appointed a temporary prime minister. now, egypt gets around $1.5 billion a year in u.s. aid which, by law is supposed to be cut off if there's a military coup. senate leaders including democratic senator carl levin and republican senator john mccain, well, they're calling for just that. but at the white house press secretary jay carney said for a second day that there are no plans to cut off egypt's aid or even label the military takeover a coup. >> we don't think it would be in the best interest of the united states to change the assistance program quickly or immediately. rather, we'll take the time necessary to evaluate it. >> john: meanwhile there's more resistance from congress on america's syria policy where the senate and white house intelligence committees are holding up planned weapons deliveries to syrian rebels. the white house is also reportedly frustrated with pushback from afghan president hamid karzai. according to the "new york

times" today mr. obama is "so frustrated with his dealings with karzai, that he's considering speeding up the planned u.s. troop pullout and abandoning plans to leave the so-called residual force at the end of 2014". at the white house jay carney said that's still in the future. >> i want to make clear today's story notwithstanding this is not a decision that's eminent. we're talking about a residual force -- a potential residual force in a year and a half. >> john: the drone policy word imminent means anything they want. one potentially positive development for the white house however, it now seems former nsa contractor edward snowden may not be getting a grant of asylum from venezuela after all. one remarkable note to the president from senior u.s. district judge gladys kessler asked to rule on a motion to stop force-feeding the guantanamo inmates on hunger strike to protest their terms of

confinement. judge kessler said president obama could stop the force-feeding. the question is with all of this swirling around him, what's a president to do? and for that, i'm delighted to be joined this evening by shibley telhami, the professor for peace and development at the university of maryland, a senior fellow with the brookings institution's sabine center and author of the world through arab eyes arab public opinion and the reshaping of the middle east. mr. telhami, it is a pleasure to you have on "viewpoint." >> good to be with you. >> john: we have a lot of ground to cover. does the white house's refusal to "make a determination or label the events in egypt" pass the smell test for you at least in terms of u.s. policy and law? granted interim government led by a civilian has been named but if this isn't a military coup, what is? >> well, look, there are two sides to this. one side is of course the technicality. obviously if the administration makes that determination then you know, congress is really

obligated by law to cut off aid to egypt which obviously the administration doesn't want to do. that technicality is important. by the way the aid to egypt which obviously is the subject of this law was never given because of democracy. that aid was always a strategic aid. >> john: indeed. >> it was buying peace between israel and egypt. it was buying cooperation between the u.s. military and the egyptian military. the intelligence forces. that's really what it's buying. that's why a lot of the executive branch, you know, particularly security branches of government really want to maintain that aid as lever. but there is another side that's more legitimate. frankly, the fact that you have a military intervention in a revolutionary time does not necessarily make it a coup. i think there is a thin line between a coup and a revolution. a look at the 2011 egyptian

revolution and the 2010 tunisian revolution. they were really decided by military intervention. in fact, you can argue in 2011, the military actually governed egypt far more decisively than they're doing now. the real question is there major public support for it. what is the intent of the takeover. what are the consequences. those are not immediately determined. and so in that sense they do have some time to determine that. >> john: i think you're right sir. i think there are many who say this is not a coup considering the military threatened action but didn't actually do it and has appointed a civilian interim leader. however, i want to ask you one followup question. would you believe then that if this were a coup and the u.s. was forced to cut off the aid would then, the camp david peace accords with israel, be in jeopardy? >> probably not. i think that it's not in egypt's interest or egypt's military's interest to get into confrontation with israel and that's what the muslim

brotherhood found quickly by the way. much of the aid wasn't going to the brotherhood. it was going to the egyptian military which was somewhat at odds with the brotherhood obviously the brotherhood never fully trusted them and we saw why. so no, i think it is in egypt's interest to maintain the peace treaty. nobody wants to go to war and certainly not in a time of transition. where it will cost, i think more, is in the collaboration between the u.s. military and the egyptian military, the intelligence cooperation that is so substantial over issues that have to do with national security. what happens, let's say in six months if the u.s. ended up finding itself at war with iran, i hope not by the way. but clearly, you can look at that and see what happens if there is -- in three months, war between hamas and israel, that then the egyptians have to be, you know, weigh in. you need collaboration with them. so a lot is at stake in that relationship. regardless of the law, i'm not

intervening on the law side. leave that aside. but there is -- you can make an argument that this is getting the u.s. so much in return in terms of strategic cooperation. >> john: indeed it is. i think the president's proven despite what our friends at fox might be saying, he's not on the side of the muslim brotherhood but on the side of the will of the egyptian people. to that point sir, is the revolt against the morsi government the next phase of the arab spring or is it its obituary? >> first of all i never use the term arab spring. >> john: okay. >> i use the term arab awakening and arab uprisings. they are profound and the egyptian events show that they're still profound. let me explain what i mean. i think what we've seen with the arab uprisings is really the empowerment of the individual. of people wanting the voices to be heard. people rejecting authoritarianism rejecting control. that's coming out of the

information revolution that is only expanding. and there is every indication that people have persisted. the egyptians whatever you say is happening in egypt, obviously egyptians are divided. syrians are divided. everybody is divided. but there is an empowerment on a scale we have never witnessed. we've seen millions on the streets of cairo. they had the patience to be there for two and a half years consistently because they want their voices heard. empowerment doesn't mean that they all want the same thing. so when you have society empowered, you're going to have the left and right, the religious and the secular. so that's what we see now. so you see the brotherhood is putting out their own millions into the streets. the opposition is putting out its own. so yes this is going to be sustained and if anybody had a thought that they can bring back tyranny through military coup or something else, i guarantee you the public will not let them -- and the evidence of the past two

and a half years of those people packing the streets that sea of humanity is going to repeat itself because people want their voices heard. >> john: i think you're right to. that end let's turn to syria sir. as you know, congress is hold up military aid to the country's rebels out of fear that they're not going to make a decisive difference in this decision to oust assad. also because there is a fear the weapons might be diverted to islamic militants among the factions. given that we've ruled out sending heavy weapons and anti-aircraft missiles, could deliveries make a difference and hasn't the threat of weapons diversion to al-qaeda-linked militants been a major issue all along? >> probably not. and i say probably not you know. i'm not a military expert. i tell you, in the debate about the iraq war which i opposed by the way with all of the people who were so expert on military side and saying oh, it's going to be a breeze. it is going to be -- people are going to welcome us.

we don't need ground intervention. all of the people who really didn't know much about the military. i don't want to repeat the same mistake. i don't really know the game particularly. i can say this. if you look at what has transpired in syria. if you look at all of the factions that are involved in syria, all of the foreign powers that are intervening what has happened since the beginning of the uprising until now, it is unlikely that the infusion of some small arms is going to make a difference in this -- in the outcome of the uprisings. i think you know, it is probably true that the president's decision was a reluctant one and it was probably more unfortunately due to pressure, domestically, even though i think there's no public pressure, by the way. but in a way sort of among a lot of the critics. that he had to push -- to go to the next step. i think that's where he finds

himself. >> john: mr. telhami, i would like to bring in ari ratner, a principal at the truman project on national security and center for public policy. mr. ratner welcome. welcome to "viewpoint." >> pleasure to be with you. >> john: president obama has said on several occasions, he doesn't expect the assad government to survive in syria. how do you evaluate the situation? does it look like assad will retain power and what would be the repercussions in the region if this mass effort to oust him face? >> well, it is very difficult to say, of course, if you would ask many people two years ago it may have looked like the assad regime would fail quickly particularly after the rebels had a seered of success including -- had a series of success including an attempt to decapitate the assad register -- regime which killed aides. it is clear they'll fight to the death. they've made recent success particularly through heavy investment by their allies,

hezbollah and by iran. it is certainly possible that the assad regime could hold on for quite a bit more time. i think over the long run the reality is there's no way they can govern syria. there's no way they can quash this rebellion. really there's no way they can ever restore it to the status quo. so i think the reality is even if they hold on which is by no means, assured at best, they can govern a patchwork country under significant duress and i think the reality is, over time, particularly if we're able to pick off some of their international support particularly russia, there's no way they can last and restore governance. >> john: russia is the tricky part. i would like to ask you both about afghanistan, if i could. of course, we know that relations with the karzai government have deteriorated to a point where president obama is now considering a zero option where all u.s. troops would be gone by the end of 2014. mr. ratner, since you just joined us, i'll go to you first on this.

do you consider the zero option for u.s. troops a threat to try to keep president karzai in line or is it a real option as jay carney insisted it was today? >> i think it is a bit of both. the reality is certainly from the public's perspective no one in america wants to maintain troop levels in afghanistan. we've been fighting a war there since 2001. of course, many people recognize we still have interests and there may be a use for u.s. troops but the reality is if they can't get a legitimate status of forces agreement with the karzai government and if there's no real productive use for the troops, i think many americans including the president, would be happy to have them home. >> john: indeed. mr. telhami, the u.s. pulled out of afghanistan after the soviets left early in 1989. civil war and taliban rule came next followed by osama bin laden's arrival, the rise of al-qaeda. is the u.s. going to risk, sir a similar scenario if it leaves afghanistan for good in a year and a half or less? >> well, i think the real question that you have to ask is

would it really make a difference if we leave them for another year or two years or three years at the level that we have them. would it really make a difference without them? i think the answer is probably not. therefore then why pay the cost? why lose more lives? why pay the financial cost of it? and i think the president is probably serious about pulling out because i think that's the conclusion in some ways, there is a political cost always with withdrawal. you have to justify it somehow. a lot of people are angry with karzai. you can see that among american elites particularly in the way he's been behaving as of late. go back to iraq when in fact the president ultimately decided to withdraw completely and won't leave anything behind pretty much. it was over this disagreement over the agreement. and obviously he used that as an excuse to explain why he has to do -- pull out more rapidly than originally anticipated he might be doing the same thing in afghanistan.

>> john: one thing is clear this is the summer of barack obama's discontent, where edward snowden appears to be the least of his worries. thank you very much. ari ratner, state department appointee and principal of the truman project. and shibley telhami professor for peace and development at the university of maryland, college park and senior fellow with the brookings institution saban center. thank you for coming on "viewpoint." hope to you have again because it seems like it will be a long, hot summer and it will only get more complicated. >> thank you. >> john: up next, the end of doma is leading not just to marriage licenses but green cards, too.

>> john: welcome back. on june 26 as you may have heard, the u.s. supreme court in a 5-4 ruling, struck down the defense of marriage act. that's recognizing americans of same-sex couples for all purposes, including immigration benefits. according to the williams institute, a think tank for lgbt issues, there are an estimated

40,000 same sex binationals couples in the u.s. who can benefit from the supreme court's decision to overturn doma. now, any lawful permanent resident can sponsor his wife or husband and stay together here in the states. and the first gay couple in america to have their petition for immigration benefits approved as a result of this supreme court ruling is julian marsh and tray popov. tray, who is originally from bulgaria was here on a student vees have a finishing his ph.d. and would not have been allowed to stay in this country once his education ended. thanks to the demise of doma, he's able to apply for a green card and someday in florida with his husband julian. julian and tray are here with us today to share their story and their struggles. gentlemen, congratulations and welcome to "viewpoint." >> thank you john. we appreciate your inviting us on the show. >> thank you john. >> john: pleasure to you have both. where were you guys when you heard the ruling and what was your reaction? were you on the supreme court

steps? >> no. we were at the gym. i was on the treadmill. i was watching cnn. oops, on my little cell phone. and as soon as it was announced i on solutely jumped up and screamed yea and everybody looked at me like what's going on. i ran over to tray and pulled him off his machine and we were joyous. i don't think anybody knew why but we knew. >> john: in most gyms, pulling someone off a machine is looked down upon. you knew that tray would be able to stay in the country as a legally recognized spouse. >> that's right. and just a week before, we had been thinking about well, if we have to leave we just kind of pack everything up in one car and head for toronto or something like that. and the thought of that was just, you know, killing us that we would have to leave our home where we wanted to live, where we chose to live because our federal government at the time didn't recognize our marriage and our state still doesn't

recognize our marriage. >> john: of course it disoo. you both didn't begin this as symbols of a movement. you never planned on this. >> no. >> john: tell us how that day brought you both to the forefront and what it means to you both. >> go ahead. >> well, when we actually found out, it was june 28th. it was my birthday. we were eating at a restaurant and we got a phone call from our lawyer and he told us that our petition had been approved. and we kind of looked at each other and we were actually -- i don't think we went crazy but we were like that's great news. and i don't think it hit us right then and there. but the next day, it was like our lives changed. and ever since then, our lives are changed. get have time to take it in until about three days in when tray was interviewed by three bulgarian news sources and it

just kind of hit home when homosexuality is something you don't talk about in bulgaria. it is almost like don't ask don't tell. and all of a sudden, there tray was in the news talking about something that's quite taboo there. and that's when it kind of hit tray. he just broke down and the happiness and joy of being able to help others. we received hundreds, hundreds i would say of messages on facebook and e-mails from people all over the world and in america, asking us how did we do it? how did we get this done? and we just told them about the doma project.org where we went to. and suggested they do the same. just a bunch of lawyers. we were guided through the system really. and we were the first to get approved and we just woke up one day and there it was. we're just so, so pleased. i mean, can you imagine being told you have to leave the

country with the person you love just because you're not status quo? >> john: absolutely. you guys made history. you did it for something that heterosexual couples get to take for granted. tray, let me ask you briefly. considering how same-sex relationships are looked upon in bulgaria, what kind of reception has your history making had there? >> okay, currently in bulgaria major protests against the government so i was pleased that my story was covered by respectable media. i would say overwhelmingly supportive, of course because like everywhere else but overall, i think people were very supportive and just curious and the whole coverage was very objective. and i'm very pleased. all i can say is -- >> john: you made history in two countries. >> absolutely. if it can help one gay person in bulgaria to feel better about themselves, we have achieved a lot. so i'm pleased.

>> john: i'll bet you've done it across europe. currently 12 states and the district of columbia have legalized same-sex marriage but not your home state of florida, gentlemen. what concerns you most, living in a state that doesn't legally recognize your union? >> well, about the only thing we can do here is register with our county which gives us visitation rights in case we were in an accident. we live in broward county. let's say we went to dinner down in dade county and we were in an accident. that doesn't mean they would let us in to see each other. it is just basic human rights that we don't have. now, in florida we're not recognized. they don't recognize marriages performed in other states in the same country. now, imagine we went to israel, okay. just imagine. israel also doesn't perform same-sex marriages but they recognize legal marriages recognized in other countries and other states. so our marriage in new york

would be recognized in israel but not in florida. how do you think that makes us feel? not good. >> john: it doesn't make you feel like you're living in america, i'm sure. you know what? it is state by state. before we go, how do you guys appeal to perhaps let's just say fundamentalist mindsets that don't want to hear your voices? how do you reach across the divides or do you ignore them and fight for equality? >> well, we have joined forces with equality florida and we are volunteers. and really we just want to show people that we're no different than anyone else. we don't want anyone else. when people tell us things like you're going to destroy the sank tude of marriage, i'm like how are we doing that exactly? let's see. we work. we go to the gym. we play with our dogs. how does that destroy your marriage somewhere else in had this country? i think other people do a great job of destroying their own marriages. i don't think we're doing that.

so we just are there to show people we're no different. we just live the same life everybody else does. what we do inside our house is our business and what you do inside your house is your business. but you know, that's the great thing about the way the federal government has changed the system. we were processed quickly the same way anybody else would. >> john: exactly. >> the system was already there. it didn't care whether you're a male, a female or a female and a male. the system just put us through. we're now treated like everybody else and that's all anybody wants. but for some reason, the bigots out there want to treat us differently, as second-rate citizens. we don't understand why. certainly if it is in the name of religion, we don't get you. maybe we don't subscribe to your religion. we won't push our values on you. that's simple. >> john: there's nothing jesus said against same-sex marriage and while you may freak out a few bigots, i wouldn't be surprised if you guys opened up

a lot of hearts and minds along the way. thank you for sharing your story and continuing to fight for equal rights in america. >> thank you john. >> thank you john. >> john: best of luck. up next, we visit wyoming where two cheneys maybe two cheneys too many.

(vo) later tonight 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. >> john: well, we could not do a week of wtf wyoming without saying cheney. which, while being the most ineffective s & m safe word ever is also the name attached to the state's most famous dick.

quotes like we will be treated as liberators or the insurgency is in your last stages or luke i am your father but it is his daughter liz, become being a dark side of the force to be reckoned with. she has decided to run for senator in wyoming because in case you didn't know, liz is a deep abiding connection to the state after growing up in virginia and working all of other adult life in washington d.c. she has been living in why onlying for a few months and she's a big booster of the state's tourism industry because after all she's not much more than a tourist there herself. hillary clinton moved to new york yada, yada, you're right. the thing is if liz cheney runs for senator wyoming already happens to have a very conservative republican senator mike enzi. alan simpson a former republican senator from the state has said of liz cheney's g.o.p. primary challenge "it's a disaster, all it does is open the door for the democrats for 20 years." thank you, senator simpson for

being willing to look on the bright side of things. wtf wyoming. dick cheney is a huge booster of his daughter's candidacy despite the fact that enzi has been dick cheney's fly-fishing buddy for decades d is great to know cheney is not only capable of shooting his friends in the case, he also has no problem stabbening them in the back. 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?

>> john: on june 24th, president obama announced a plan to address climate change, pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. now, part of the president's plan involves moving away from coal and investing in natural gas which the president described as cleaner and safer. but is it? one of the main components of natural gas is, of course, methane. a heat-strapping gas and a large contributor to global warming. it is argued by scientists and activists alike that fracking causes a large amount of methane leakage which begs the question even among the president's most ardent supporters, is he really serious about the green agenda?

here to discuss the potential risks and benefits and who is really getting the rewards i'm pleased to be joined by filmmaker, josh fox. he's academy award nominated feature gas land exposed the dangers of natural gas drilling and he's just released a sequel titled gasland 2. we're excited to have him with us tonight on "viewpoint." welcome to the show, josh. >> thanks so much. great to be back. >> john: great to have you back. your first feature gasland stemmed from an offer you received for the natural gas drilling rights for your property and it opened up a national conversation about fracking. but in the end, about 60% of your neighbors sold their drilling rights. that didn't happen in this matt damon movie i saw. were you disappointed in your neighbor's decision? >> it is actually not 60% of your neighbors. it was 60% of the landmass. it was controlled by 30% of the people who live in my township. the majority of people were against -- are against fracking and didn't sign up to lease but that wasn't the majority of

landmass. unfortunately, in this debate, often, it is the dollar amount that matters or the landmass amount that matters. but what we're trying to do with the new film is explain how the process of democracy has become corrupted in the same way so we're trying to point out a real problem here that the oil and natural gas industry has really taken away the democracy from the people. and that it has caused an imbalance in the way government enforced regulations and deals with future energy choice and has skewed the whole debate considerably. >> john: i think a lot of americans are beginning to start waking up to the realities of fracking. as you know, president obama's been touting an aggressive climate change agenda featuring this technology. do you feel it's possible to have a climate change agenda that includes fracking? is it genuine? >> no. i mean i think it is a mistaken information. i know the president and his administration has met many times with the natural gas industry and the natural gas

industry has said well, we burn -- we create 50% of the co2 emissions as burning coal. well that's not the whole story. that sounds like a good thing like 50% of the co2 emissions. if you're focusing just on carbon dioxide. however, methane is a super greenhouse gas. it is 100 times more potent than carbon dioxide is in the short 20-year timeframe which means if you have anymore than 1% leakage of methane out of total production, you're like burning the gas twice. what we're finding in the field these are field studies done by scientists measurements done by scientists we're getting between 7% and 17% leakage. we're at 7 or 17 times worse than coal from the data we're starting to get right now. what that means is that actually frac gas is worse than coal in the 20-year time horizon and about the same on the 100-year time horizon. what we're seeing is an

environmental movement that rightfully and -- i'm included in this -- hates coal. it is incredibly destructive both for the environment, the atmosphere, the communities living near the mountain top removal where they blow up entire mountains in west virginia and through appalachia. but we're seeing this trade-off of one form of pollution for another. one form of dirty energy for another. a lot of that has to do with the influence of the natural gas industry has on this administration. what we're asking the president to do is to please sit down and meet with the families in the film "gasland 2" that are emblematic of several families in the united states that are suffering at the hands of drilling in united states history domestically and to meet with the scientists and engineers featured in the film who explain the dark side of fracking. water contamination that is an inevitability that's happening all across the shale gas areas because the wells crack and leak and the industry knows they crack and leak and because of the issue brought up of methane

being this super greenhouse gas that is being emitted all over the production. in the production fields, in the gas fields in the transmission lines, the compressor stations the pipelines and in the cities where gas is being delivered. >> john: josh, anyone who's seen the footage on youtube of people's water catching on fire as it leaves their taps knows how destructive and dangerous fracking can be. for all of the good propaganda we hear from the oil industry and from the charming blond lady in the pantsuit i see on every other commercial all the time. i think she's running for president at this point. but my question is, is this a war between fossil fuels and renewable resources? what are viable, renewable solutions that could put fracking out of business. >> the good news is that there is a solution to this problem. renewable energy is capable technologically of satisfying all of our energy needs. the wind and the sun bundled together solve the intermitten is i problem the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine. based on laws of nature, when

the wind is not blowing, the sun is often shining. when you couple them together, you get to about 95% of all of our energy generation needs then you can fill in with hydropower, geothermal tidal power. you can generate hydrogen. technologically, it is possible. what we're seeing here is the government asks the wrong question. how do we replace carbon. what we're coming back with is oh, natural gas. well, this is the wrong question. the question has to be how do we start to replace all fossil fuels? we know that in current projections, we'll reach the red line two degrees centigrade -- 2 degrees warming of the planet by 2042. that's 29 years away. we only have this short period of time to start to solve the problem. the best way to do it is to start to get methane out of the atmosphere and the best way to do it is to create vigorous production of renewable energy of the wind and the sun. >> john: josh, let me play

devil's advocate for a second. there is a real feeling, ugly as it is, only mankind would create something so toxic it kills rocks that fracking is the new normal. do you really believe that we can heat homes in minnesota through the winter using solar and wind alone? >> absolutely. these are things that are easily calculated. if you look at the front page article in scientific american by professor mark jacobson, you can see that strategy laid out. easy thing to google search. he's also written a plan for the state of new york and a plan for the state of california. he's on his way to writing 50 plans for 50 states. a lot of the stuff has to be dealt with regionally. the bottom line is that as we're looking forward to our energy future, we don't need to develop 50 to 60 to 70 years more dependency on yet another dirty fossil fuel. that's what natural gas is. that's what's in front of us. the good news part of this is

right now, even with all of the drilling that's happening we're still in the infancy of the shale gas drilling campaign. in pennsylvania, they've drilled about 6,000 wells into the shale. it covers 3/4 of pennsylvania, half of new york half of ohio, all of west virginia. so 6,000 wells. now we know that a thousand families have petitioned to the environmental protection about wells. the projection for pennsylvania is 200,000 wells. the projection for new york state is around 100,000. we're talking about one to two million wells projected in the united states. to fulfill this massive drilling effort. that's at the top end one well per 150 people. that's drilling the united states into swiss cheese. when we're talking about creating and keeping our standard of living, the perception a lot of the time is renewable energy can't get us to what we're used to in terms of

energy uses. that's not true. it is the opposite. if we continue to drill like crazy, if we finance to go down -- if we continue to go down this pathway of extreme energy fracking, mountain top removal, deep water drilling for oil as we saw horrific results in the gulf of mexico, that's the way we start to diminish our standard of living. that's the way we start to toxify and pollute the united states of america. this is a choice moment. and you know, this president -- there's never been a president in history that's had more political capital to charge forward and get the united states off of fossil fuel. deep water horizon spill the worst explosion the worst environmental cat ast catastrophe in history. the worst disaster of killing coal miners in history. this president can seize the moment and seize the grassroots movement that -- some of the same people who elected him and say we're going to hear the people out and listen to what they're saying on the ground in the drilling areas and take a look at the scientific

projection instead of being bamboozled by an industry whose hallmark is deceit. deceitful from the word go. and it doesn't matter how many of these slick ads that are on television what they're putting over on the america people is the toxic drilling campaign that expands throughout 34 states, proven to contaminate water harmful to the atmosphere. that it creates a health crisis where it goes. industrializes and fractures communities. >> john: josh, i think your film has telling truths. i encourage people to see gasland and gasland 2 which premiered this week on hbo. >> thank you for having me again. >> john: stick around. my panel of distinguished nonexperts will be here to talk about rand paul's racist pals. rupert mur -- murdoch's embarrassing tapes. what more do you need than that?

>> john: rand paul probably wants to throw the book at his former senator. he hired jack hunter to help

write his 2011 book, the tea party goes to washington. hunter then became paul's social media director. the problem is he used to be the chairman of the racist league of the south which still advocates the confederacy's succession from the union in this century. mr. hunter became a pundit called the southern avenger who was thrilled with lincoln's assassination, he would have had gay sex with hitler, celebrates john wilkes' booth's birthday and ranted against mexican music. i don't know who hates mexican music but the question is what impact will all this have on rand paul and his future plans to never ever be elected president. i'm glad you ask. scott blakeman is the funny creator of liberal comedian.com. he performs his unique brand of political stand-up across the country and regularly in new york with a laughing liberally lab. up next, regular from "the stephanie miller show," the great lee papa, the rude pundit whose work can be found at rude

pundit.blockspot.com. he's the author of the rude pundit's almanack. and frank conniff. >> hello. >> john: gentlemen, thank you. we should note that hunter renounced most of his comments in an interview yesterday. and in a blog post, late yesterday, but should we be surprised that rand paul's social media director once longed for the days with a friendly gathering meant lots of guys in white sheets? >> well, speaking of gathering of just white guys -- >> john: this is our first ever all four white guy panel. where it is exactly like fox except for the evil part. >> that's right. as much as i love coming up with jokes about racists foaming at the mouth, i do think jack hunter is not one -- for fairness, as you are is that this is a guy, he was a shock jock. not a very noble profession. he admits when he had that job back in the '90s, he said the

horribly inflammatory things. he said he doesn't agree with that. >> john: he said it after the '90s, the last decade, up to 2007, he's on record. >> right. he said things -- well, you know, he said very troubling things and i'm not defending anything he said. it is all terrible. i would say in context i took a little extra time. he's going to write -- he did a write-up for the charlton city newspaper. talk about being surprised. >> john: mexican wrestling mask with a confederate flag over it. >> he regrets it at the time. >> john: as of this weekend he regrets it. >> gotta say that the people that -- point this out on the conservative web site is pretty much a mouthpiece for the conservative establishment. doesn't like rand paul. again, i find everything this guy said repugnant. let's not call him racist. >> traitor. >> not a bad writer. actually praised obama's race speech in 2008. >> john: okay.

scott is trying to be fair. let's all call scott a racist. lee papa? >> first of all the man has a name that belongs in porn. >> john: we all agree on that. >> frankly if you're going to have a racist on your team when you're running for president why not have the guy that wears the mask. looking at rand paul, he looks like a guy that -- but let's be fair to jack hunter. let's be fair to the southern avenger, the man that said that every may 10th, he wants to raise a toast to johnibleible wilkes booth. >> i find it as an actor and performer myself, i find it touching that john wilkes booth still has a fan after all of these years. his following is still there. >> john: john wibles booth autograph is worth much more

than the lincoln autograph. the fact is that this is a problem that's plagued the paul family. they're very confederate friendly. definite hint of racism. the giant confederate flag. jack hunter said that he thought if lincoln had met hitler, they would have had gay sex. that's a bit sophisticated for him. >> and that lincoln was like saddam hussein. >> john: compare link and saddam hussein. >> i think he would have liked his beard. >> not to be a party pooper. >> rand paul i give him credit for doing. and he said he never was against the civil rights act. in fact, he's against the key tenements -- >> john: he was against the civil rights act. >> he has admitted being against banning discrimination publicly. if you own a woolworth's, you should have a right. i abhor racism.

he's wrong on that and wrong when he says the demise of doma that adults could marry dogs. >> john: racists should be free to run -- >> terrific job of doing more of the republican outreach to minorities. >> john: indeed. it is true. which revelation did you guys find the most crazy about this guy? >> just the mexican confederate mask. was pretty nuts. >> yeah. >> john: in fairness, senator paul, i gotta say this because scott is rooting for him. senator paul puts out a statement that reads... so how will this affect rand paul's standing in the party? >> why does he even hire this guy in the first place? he knows his history. i mean for them to come out and say oh, you know, that was just years ago. and when you factor in his dad's overtly -- not hints of racism.

they had ads in there saying now with 25% more racism. >> john: ron paul's newsletter which he signed his name to, said i didn't sign it. >> but hunter worked for ron paul. >> did he. >> and 2007-2008 he worked it. >> look, rand paul has a lot to answer to. but jack hunter, i have to say you know, people do horrible things in the past. i'm not defending his words but in a week when new york city with politics, people coming back from disgrace. i know this is a different situation. i believe it is a human being we're talking about. he said ridiculously stupid, ugly things. >> i find your compassion for him reprehensible. >> you feel he's -- >> john: i will agreement i don't think we should ever condemn someone based on the worst thing they did but you're a racist for defending him. scott blakeman from liberal comedian.com. see him live in new york. lee papa from rude

pundit.blogspot.com. and thanks to frank conifer. you can follow on twitter or facebook at frank conniff. guys, what a pleasure to you. rand paul doesn't care because he will never be president. he just wants to raise money from racists and speeches.

>> beam wants to fake our guns. >> john: actually, president obama is not trying to confiscate all 300 million guns. he can't get a background law passed. most americans want universal background checks including the majority of nra members. sir, people want to close the gun show loophole because that's how thousands of criminals get their guns and that's how tons of the legal guns become illegal. >> background checks infringe on my second amendment rights. >> background checks infringe on your second amendment right if

you're a felon criminal or insane. >> people kill people. >> john: guns don't kill people sir but nra people who own congress people make it easier for deranged people to get guns and kill innocent people. sir, do you realize as i reason with you in some parts of the country, it is easier to buy a gun than to get on food stamps or buy sudafed. you have to show i.d. to buy a beer. >> i need it for hunting. >> john: if you need 30 rounds in a magazine for hunting you suck at hunting. the only reason you ever need assault weapons to hunt, sir, is zombie deer. assault weapons are designed to kill lot of humans really fast. >> we need to impeach obama for supporting our freedom hating assault weapons ban. >> john: i am afraid you'll have to impeach ronald reagan because he supported the 1994 assault weapons ban. >> yeah, well, he had alzheimer's by then. >> john: and not when he sold arms to the iranians who killed our marines in beirut back in

the '80s then forgot he did it? >> guns aren't the problem. it is video games. >> john: i'm sure australia europe, japan had the same video games but substantially fewer gun deaths. why? because they protect their citizens with responsible gun safety laws. >> the nra protects my god-given rights. >> john: god hasn't weighed in on that. they opposed the u.n. arms treaty. the nra fights to safe easy access while the real patriots are fighting to save american lives. the nra is a fake constitutional rights lobbying group that gun manufacturers use to buy off congressmen then they send out terrifying mailings to scare you that obama is taking your guns. they don't represent their members. they represent the gun manufacturers, the only ones who have profited from what happened in newtown. >> people who want gun control after newtown are exploiting a massacre. >> john: no, they're not. they're trying to prevent the next massacre, sir. when we talk about the nra

we're not talking about all of their members. in frank's poll of nra members 87% believe second amendment freedom went hand in hand with preventing gun violence. that's responsibility. >> wayne lapierrre is all about responsibility. >> john: no, wayne lapierrre fights for the rights of mine yaks to not have to reload mid massacre. every time he talks about massacre an angel coughs up blood. >> i need guns to defend myself when the government comes for my guns. >> john: this government can't make deadbeat dads pay their child support. who are you going to shoot? you think you can bring a gun to a drone fight? >> your laws against bad guys with guns ruin it for good guys with guns. obama is a gun had been grabbing tyrant dictator. >> john: the fact you're allowed to arm yourself proves he's not. >> yeah, well, benghazi.

>> john: that's our show. this is "viewpoint." i'm john. he's frank. this is current. we're still here. good night mom. >> joy: tonight i'll talk with eliot spitzer's opponent for new york city controller who, by the way is the same woman who once ran the brothel that got him in trouble in the first place. only in new york can this happen. plus, is spitzer's return to politics too soon? not really. according to the madam, he can go all night. there's no such thing as a male midlife crisis. really? how do you describe the banana colored black socks they're all wearing at 50. all of that and more next on "say anything."