10:00 p.m. onaturday, sunday at 70 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. eastern. happy friday, everyone.eeeeeeeet you think they could have broken earlier, tomorrow. john: we're at war against terror. >> this warlike all wars must end. john: so that american is we war on app? apple keeping massive profits overseas, a war on hate crime. >> what tur a normal fat little 8-year-old boy into a vicious hate crime committing rapi? john: to continue the war on drugs. >> this is your brain on drugs. john: start one on food. america's wars on food, terror, business drugs, and hate. >> if you want to ht another human bei, you better make sure they are the same cor as you are. john: thais our show, tonight.

>> now joh stossel. john: we starthow about america's ws with our biggest war, the war on terror,r, a stnge question, what is the right way to kl hosexuals? now that we he your atttntion, i learned about the proper way to kill gays fmormer c direct james would -- so ambassador woolsly explain. >> john, whe i was chairman of board of freedomouse, we had a group ofmerican muslims come in to usn were disturbed because the saudis sent imams with diplomatic psports to go to a number of mosques in the u.s., including theirs, they

took away the perfectly reason able instruct materia for young people to who were muslim to learn islam. d they left inste a set of material they th the imam pnted up, i remember a second of those, it was three ways that it was proper to kill a homosexual from the rah habes -- wahhabis in saudi arabia point of view. yoview. >> it had to b high enough to fe pain coming down? >> right, and would die because it had to be high enough. the stoning is supposed to be with small stones, so it takes a long time. and big stone does not knock anybody out. then other third way that wahhabis say you could burn them alive. saudi embassy got upset at this,

said it was a mistake, and old material we shoul not pay attention. but nt year of it the same. so, we -- look, it i not exclusively a muslim problem, 400 years ago, my fellow call calvinist protestants were burning witches in salem, massachusets. john: what is your point on war on terror. >> at east in parteally important to realize that there is an idealogical side. it is not just random violence, we need to get it straight, not get bogged down on a nonsensible ib notion of buying politically correct. john:hat do you want to do? kill them all ?

of course not, you need to start out b noteing politically correct, understaing where some of the movements come from. and some of is some parts of islam, we need to be cand about that. john: saudis have a big education campaign, whabi schools ty teach stuff like th to kill homosexuals. these people are our partners supposed. >> about 1 to 2% of muslims saudis control, and where the rah habes are doing -- rah habe wahh are doing writing and teaches is hostile to other religions, in forms of advocating violence in the form of jihad and so forth. john: we're not going to bomb alall these people. we can't convince them to be more open minded.

what do you want to do? >> i want us t be able to drive on something other than oil products. we need to be able to tell opec, that we do not have to keep shipping them money in order to drive our carsnd our trucks. >> so you say we can kil them bute can bankrupt them? >> suggest we need to do is to ta away the power of monopoly, that lets oil dominate -- transportation to opptunity about 97% that wouldndirectly encourage eople like the saudis and others to actually wk for a living, rather than lifting oil for $2 a barrel, and selling it to us for $102. john: what abouthat president said about bnging drone war down. and should we be spending what we're pending now on the war

against terror? >> well, d drone is a weapon. and think of it as a flying sniper in a way. you have i t a lot less collateral damage if you attack al qaeda leader with a drone than if you aac him with a bomb. john: do we need to spend what we're spending? >> i think that we may need to spend more, we m be able it get byith less, point is to fire out what it takes toin. and snd that. john: thank you ambassador olsey >thank you. john: i want america to have a strong military that protects us from fanatics who want to kill us. but how big ailitary is that? we now spend almost $800 billion on defense. about a fifth of our budget. chris prebbl e at cato institute, said, that is

way too much? >> it is more than we spend at peak of cold war, when ronald agan was fighting the siet unn. john: cato, your thi tank made this video that compares our military spending that that of r allies. >> every year u.s. spes -- our allies spend a quarter or less to defend themselves. we agree to pay big bucks to de our friends, and they let us. that allows our friends to spend far more on everything else. we pick up the tab for global security spending, and our allies free ride. >> they arereeloading off of us, we're suckers? >> we a suckers. i d't blame them, if i was in their suation, ii someone else

offered to pay for my security i would let them too, that is what our allies have done. after world war ii they were shatted by war, but somewhere along t line, they got rich, we didn't revisit why we continue to defend them, when they can defend themselves. johnall righthe probably will not do all things that we want our military to do. and that list is long. we want to kill terrorists, and ain foreignilitary to kill terrorists. >> some countrieses are very god at that, some better than us. many of the successl erions against al qda have been y other organizations other militarie and hor countries -- other countries in cooperation with us, it in inclined to defend themselves if we were not helping them. john: people want the military to do more protect other countries from aggression t toontain china an and -- to conn

china and iran. >> i think that china is the big ogeyman out t there, chinese military spendings second to the world, but we're discouraging china's neighbors from dng more to defend themselves. i think that is short-sight. john: ira threatens nuclear bomb and do who bes what. >> theyon't have a nuclear bomb, china does. few oths have them, ran does not iran ii tiny relative to the threatat supposedly posed by china, we node to put them in perspective. john: w want navy torotect - >> tey defend the sea lanes fr interception or disrupted. but, free seas are a benefit to many people, few people would benefit from closing them, thecally thatould like to close them like al qaeda can't. john: if we did that, we would spend what? >>uite a bit less, i thi a good rule of thumb, what we were

spending around time of 9/11 attas today is about $450 billion. that is a good start. back then we were still dending other countries that could defend themselveses,f we stopped that we could spend less. john: we would be safe? >> absolutely. >> thank you, u next more wars like that war over wt you will eat. >> we don't just want them labeled we' them gone. john: and the war on hate, itself. >> we should be treated the same with the same laws and same punishment for the same crimes.

john: did you see headlines senators blast apple. congress went to war again that evil technology company. >> apple is one of the biggest tax avoers in america. >> most of your profits worldwide are sitting this three irish companies that you control that don't pay taxes. john: so on. but wait. apple created maybe 600,000 jobs in america. moreover seas. a huge aim of new wealth. apple ies to avoid paying

taxes, their account anes tell them to because americanaxes are crazy, they and i avoid legall won't any politician stand up for a business that makes an apatrol yeah, the ropriate response to big intrusi goverent, one senator spoke up. >> i am offended by tone and tenor of this hearing, by spec able ee was dragging in executives from an american any that is not doing anything illegal, i say instead of applatives -- ecutives we should have brought in a giant mirror to look at the reflect of congress, this is creed by awful tax code. >> way to go. senator rand paul joins us now. did you take drive for saying that rom your cleagues like mccain? >> they may not have been too happy with me, i was not happy

with the proceeding. it is an insul to make corporation officers come in raise their right-hand, and read them the riot act for doing what everybodylseoes, who wants to come forward anday you want a chief financial officer who maximized your tax bill, i asked a professor, do you te deducts on your taxes do you minimize your tax bill legally, they all answered yes, it was insults to apple, they are largest corporate taxpayer in our country, we should give them an work war for paying so many -- awardor paying so many taxes and creating so many jobs. johni am glad you complained about this attitude of bringing in the ceo to kneel before congress, apple popular, but if you have a companyhat makes pespesticide and an oil comny,

they tryo destroy you. >> they say we didn't subpoena them. but quietly they s if you don't come in we will. that committee, is one of few committees in congress that has power to subpoena, no one the say no. but i thought it was insulting they are great innovators that have created jobs a pay a lot in taxesf you want them to bridge home worldwide profits from sales overseas let make the tax code fair. there are example tha are working. john: and when your colleagues chew out companies and complain about their profit with aer. snear . >> i told them they need to bring a mirror, i imagined how funny it would be to have a 12 by 12 mirror, and have them look

this mirror to find the problem. two leaders of that committee, republican and democrat, they have been up here for 30 years, they preside over the tax code it their baby, if i forces money to go overseas,. john: am i being unfair when i against busess. have a war >> there is an attitude, like a hearing on apple. we should do, if we had a president who was a great leader, he should fly out to apple headquarter, congratulate them for being areat american cpany and company, say what can you do to help you, to allow you to bring more money home, what tax rate would help that. we should do that tove successful american company instead of dragging them into washington. and exciating them, saying they are not paying their fair share, the sam with wealthy

people in the country, instead saying how do we punish you. john: thank you, senator rand paul. >> thank you, john. jo: coming up, another kind of war, a on cerin kinds of speech. even thoughtho

>> whenever i hear about a hate crime, i a shocked and saened. >> i give a damn, do you? jo: i give damn, i am horrified when people are victimized. on the sface i shod be glad that america wages a war on hate. an that is how is ithould be says paul, w runs fighting discrimination program at a drop called human rights fst, but jimmy,ounder of go proud, a republican gay advocacy group,

says that hate crime laws are not useful. how can you say that? you have been a victim? hav >> absolutely, i was on a bike a year ago, a g cameout in to street,n a pack of kids he punched me a called me a anti-gay name. i was reaching for my phone, and one of thetherids, asked him, is he going for a gun, i let them think that. it was that thought that i might have a weapon that turned the tide. and prevented me from being a victim of a horrible crime. john: whyot more proct with hate crime laws? >> well, i just tony think there is -- don't think there is evidence they are preventing crimes beforehey happen. we need to focus on that, we can't ignore fact that certain

segments of the populationre targets of violent crime simply for who they are. we need to come up with ways to help prevent people from becoming victims of crime, rather than giving them a false sense of ecurity that there is a law. >> i would like to jump in, i don't believe that hate cme laws are the sold answer to hate crime, i think we're in grime, first mn -- in agreement that violent attacks that target people because ofheir identity, runs family contrary to -- fundamentally contrary to american values, hate crime as a ncept is under to understand. john: why? hate is in so many crimes. >> hate crime is phaps a misnomer, there are biassed crimes where people are targeted because of their identity, hate imes embed in criminal justice system notion of a hate cme,

it requires law enforcement to document them, understand them, to identify them. and to release -- prosecute them including, in some cases wh enhanced penalties, it requires them to release data on annual bases on level of hate crime that creates aroader understanding in society about what needs t be done. john: but we're drowning in-laws already in america. we have civil rightsablable, ane -- civil rights act, and violent crimes act. >> stablet a high level. a report -- >> does theaw make a difference? >> its. >> does e person think oh, thats a hate crime law. >> i had a conversation with a

transgender woman in california, she said, it does not matter what the law say, no law will change the fact, that some people look ate, they see a man in a dress, that will change with time and understanding that is the difference we're havin we're not disagreeing over fact the is a proem, we're disagreeing over theact that the government is the solution on this. john the example reminds me of the contoargs police go through to be politically correct about th, fbi now h a hate crime manual, say avoid offense of terms. what are they supposed to say. >> i think people feel when they are a victim of a crime, we want assess to in which -- we want a society where they are comfortable going to law enforcement. if they don't trust law enforcement to understand their

ctimization. >> i am for being sensitive to victims it is imptant. but i don't think it matters what you call someby, let focus on policies and things we can do to prevent from calling them a v victim. john: this antihaterime commercial, actress wanda sykes said this. >> imagine walking dow the street, wondering if this the killed? will get beatenp or cause of who you are. >> i would say to wanda, is passing a law going to change fact that some people walk down the street and wonder they will be attacke because of who they are? i don't think that law has anything to do with it, it is raising awareness not palti. >> and again, it may note that every potential vicm of a hate crime walks down the street in fear, but religious people may not go to mass or synagogue as

they mht like imarat kavkaz >> it runsontrary to our freedomf movement, that is a fundamental principle here in the.s. >> we need to focus to what will help prevent those. john: d you think we have too many laws. >> i don't think weon't have enough hate crime ls. >> on that, paul andimmy thank you. i am ending this segment with my int of view, expressed by america's gatest philosophers, the kids from "south park." >> cartman throws aack at toke an a black student. the school plan its give cartman two wee detention. but then fbi came, to say. i'm afraid it i more camp teed complicated since the victim is afric-american this is considered a hate crime. >> what turns a normal fat 8-year-old until a vicious hate

crime racist? >> you want to hurt another human being, you better make sure they are the same color as you are. >> kids complaint to the government nir. >> if someone -- governor. >> if someone kills someone it is a crime, but if they kill somebody of a different color it is a hate crime. >> that is hocrisy. >> right on kids. i wonder what they would say about war on drugs. >> this is your brain on drugs, an questions. john: that war, and on certain food. >> next.

john: the war on food. od? , what war? i c eat what i want? except raw milk and 15 states, in my tow tran fats are illegal, the bigger fight is war on something that sounds scary,

gmo foods. >> we don want them labeled we want them gone, people are getting sick. john: people are getting very sick? gmo stands for je genetically modified. most corn is. you eat is already, this is a product of years of selective breeding, corn was much smaller than this, and ls juicy, but, it means that scientists fured out a way to change food by manipulates individual genes. they have a gene that makes it taste bad to insects. here is an example of a genetetc modification that may not be sold in america, these fis are 18-month-old salmon. but the bigne was modifie to

grow twice as fast. allowi this would mean cheaper salmon, we don't have that, company that engineers fish is waiting for approval are regulators, they have been waiting 20 years. keep it away said jf smith. who runs instead for responsible technology. >> and let it in said jason lusk author of the food police. >> there is the version o natural food is a mystery, we've beenodifying food since humans have been onhe planet. the ear of corn, ancient ancestor is no bigger than your them. only selecting and pnting -- >> but gmo isonkeying with the gene?

>> all selection is playing with nes whether you pick this one and put it together, that aditional plantreeding involves many thousands of genes we don't knowhat is going to happen. modern biotechnology isicking one or t genes, to put to an ear of corn, it is morerecise. >> it should make it safer? jeffrey? >> well, fda scientistsere clear in memos made public from a lawsuit, they said process of genetic engineering is different, and leads to new and defense risks new smyrns newalld toxins, but person in charge of policy at fda was michael taylor, mont monsanto former attorney, and now president. >> monsanto captured the fda . this agency, and they are just in the tank with big business? >> month stan to has capture --

monsanto has done the same to many countries they have tir people - >> that makes me senseal skeptif you not tm. you look the every scientific authority on subject, whether national academy of sciences, and world health organization, food and these are all independent bodies of independent scientists,very one of those has confirmed that basic safety ofiotech food, ere has not been a single scientticl confirmed case of illness or a annaller join. >> since gmos have been introduced a whole news set of

diseases and disorders on the rise, these are the what parents andoctors say, they take them themselves or family off of gmo they get better, but when ty take livestock off of the soy or corn, and shift it over, livestock get bette that corn in your hand fo example, does not taste bad to insects it pokes holes in their cells and killing them, new a study, find that same toxic inte insecticide pokes homes in human cells and causes leakage. >> you are doing is throwg in aot of corporational analysis -- justin bieber songs are correlated with a rise in

autism, of course, not, if it is true they are so bad for livestock or livestock producers must be stupid. john: they must be dumb but beyond bands there is an in between point, a commercial from a group who said ift is je netically modifies label it. >> put it on the label, made with gmos. >> jason thateems reasonable. >>ht, i hav no problem with companies voluntarily labeling food, great thing for consumer choice, if you wt to avoid a gmo you have opportunities, buy organics. but tre are lot of companies that make nongmo claims do we want to main -- mandate, require companies, troubs that fda

ndates putting a label. jo: it wld scare consumers. >> it is misleading consurs to believing something that is false. hn: whole foods said they will do it voluntarily. jeff is this enough for you? >> no, i think we need to actually ban gmos, evidences clear fro independent scientists, however, when eaking about labeling, it is not responsible to force gmos on the population, right now for example, wic program gives 2 million childre inft formula, every onef those is geneticallally engineered and parents do not know. >> one of mostmo activists, came outo a a conference in

oxford, and said he dug into the scientific literature and he was wrong. john: thank you, to you both. coming up, war on drugs. new scare is over meth. and the psa the kids keep watching television while their friend convulses on the floor. >> this isn't normal. plan but but on meg, it i -- but on meth it is. >> really? is that normal? what you thinkou know. ma not be so.

>> this is your brain on drugs. any questions? john: that was one of the first commercial that warned people about drugs, they amped i up. >> wait. it's not over yet. >> this is what your family goes through, and your friends. and your mind. and your future. any questions? john: i have some, inow,ome

drug users put themselves and their families through hell. but if illegal drugs are as horrible and addictive as we've been told how come government's own statistic said millions of americans have used those drugs butta small percentage still use them, author of high price,hat challenges everything you know about drugs and society, says drugsre not as addictive or as dangerous as government, media va made thehave made them out t. carl hart, why should w believe you, you look like a drug dealer. >> drug dealers must be attractive as hell these days, i have been studying drugs for 20 something years and the effects of drugs i people. john: at columbia unirsity, you briing people in for tests. >> like marijuana,

methamphetamine, crack cocaine. the data shows that the vast majority of people who use these drugs do not go on to become addicted. some of tse peopleho have used these drugs go to to be president. current president. before the curb know president, george w. bush. bill clinton, a of though guys have used illegal drugs at some point in their life. john: all we know for sure, is that they used weed and maybe dabbled inocaine, in a coue cases. the message now is that crack, and meth, it gets worse, and it is those are just, they automatically hook you. >> same thing was said about marijuana, in 1930s, people said, you go on to use this drug, you go to commit murder, and use heroine a reason that it was allowed to ppen there were few people who used marijuana. the same is true when we think of dru like crack cok and

methamphetamine. not as many people use those drugs, so the rest are the stories, can be made up about these drugs. because, people do not know. but, i have given thousands of doses of these drugs in my study, and i am her here to telu that the public has been misled. john: in your laborator you get therugs legally. they let have you them, andou advertise? and bring users in, you recree absoluly. >> we jump through levels of approval, we recruit participants by craigslist or advertise in the village voi. john crack user come o in? >> well we say people who have used cocaine before, yes, that is right. >> and i'm looking at government statistics here, of number of people who tried drugs and used in last month. and it seems like 95% of the people, give it up, most

addictive seem to be marijuana and pain relieve, where 86% use it in last month. >> yes,o i guess when you say most people give it up, i don't know if that a way to really talk about this. you don't necessaly have to givet up to use the drug without problem, the i a -- there are theast majority of people who use drugs like cocaine, use it on weekend, or, you -- a monthly basis or use it on every 6 months or something. they hold jobs, and pay taxes they do all those things. similar way we use drugs like alcohol, these -- the body does not recognize that psycho active drug is legal or illegal. john: crack and meth are no worse. >> the problem that makes crack cocaine could and methamphetamine so dangerous, is what they are cut with.

whereas alcohol we're pretty sure what you get is pure. hn: most demonized drug today is meth, you see pictures of s meth users with no teeth this drug, @% just more in horrible, and a. we show me spell users who - mes who watcher tv while tir friend convulses on the floor. >> this isn't norl, but on meth, it is. john: propaganda? >> that is purexaggratton. that ds so much harm. because,eople actually think that they are getting a drug education by watching those commercials, i can't say this strongly enough. there are few things that have done more harm to our drug public education tn commercials like that. >> kidding tune the govnment

out. >> not only that they tune out people like me, anybody who has drug education they think that it is untrue. because of the lack of credibilit that we now have as a result of the government with these hist t holcombmercials. john: what does more harm to america, drugs or drug war? >> now, one thing i one make clear, drugs whether alcohol or crack coke am theyd be takenner russly. -- theyhould be taken seriously, they can produce harm, but the drug war i unquestion abily that drug war has condition mor done more harc community. reason why it is allowed to continue the harm it ds, or that the mor portions of harm, is hpening in communities we don't care about as a countr. jo: dr. carl hart thank you.

next. my take on the government's wars, and the irs scandal. symptoms of t sam

john: our last guest said that kids tune out the government's meage about drugs, because government laws credibility, for years they told kids, if you do

drugs, you are going to die. they saw their friends tie drugs and they were okay, they were eptical, they should, like the oxiclean guy, it better be true or you will not listen next time. but government never goesut of business. it fails at nation building in vietnam but trying again in iraq, it wages a war against hate, a war on drugs, it wages war against certain food. goes toar against almost everything business. apple pays taxes but, as cartoonist, points out b governnt wants to take much more, the politicians demand more of our money, saying we'll accomplish wonderful things wh it. there has been so muchuss about ec holder,nd just who

in the irs targeted tea party groups. will they be fired? will be there a special prosecutor? my apologies to my closing, but i don't care. who is fired or punished. it is not important, their job will be given that another buaucrat,ome will be honest, some will be n, the bigger problem is that government employees 22 million people, 21 million if you subtract military and post office, that is million and millions of people who are -- well, people. most are good but some are bad. andeople in government, have a legal right to use force. big government, gives millions of people pow overarts of our lives, most will n abuse it. but poker does corru. -- power does corpted, small be bad people. they will use their pow tor huntertureeople they don't li. people who hold wrong belief or

talk back. some of you will not get building permits, maybe you will be audited or denied a tax emption, firing an attorney general will not change, that only smaller government can, but we don't have smaller vernment. weave big government. because when there is a problem people say, yes we can. that is why i wrote, no, they can't. because government canno it should not tries. and more things it goes to war againsthe more is grows the worse off we are, while vernment condition w come millions of americans give up drugs most without help, scientists experiment with food, and we live longer. coies try to minimiz their taxes, and then use the money to produce wonderful things. individuals do, that w can. but no, they can't

that i sour show -- this is our show, thanks for watching. "the willis report" is next. ♪ gerri: hello, everybody. i'm gerri willis. tonight on "the williseport" new questions about safety at construction sites all over the country. as the fallout mousese from the deadly building collapse in philadelphia. also, it i the bigst dragnet of consumer information and our nation's history. the uproar grows. >> you can't have 100 percent security and also th have 100 percent privacy. gerri: the market's jump. the dow higheror the week. how do you lock in profits? we are watchin out forou tonight on "the willis report"