remember if it's a crisis -- now that's a threat. that one's a threat. see that! the flag, ed of the world. have a great weekend. thanks for being with us. one nation prevailed in asserting its interest in the summit in northern ireland and it was not the united states two days of tal at the g 8 in bellfast and a one hour discussion between presidents obama and putin on syria turned out to be an 'em brarsment for the president. the call was for assad to step down and a condemn nation of assad after putin incestsisted

obama white house claims. president obama's foreign policy looks increasingly muddled and confused particularly and most urgely on the issue of syria. on the eve of that summit the obama said i would be sending small arms to the rebels some of whom have dangerous ties to al qaeda but in an interview which was taped last sunday president obama denied his policy on syria had changed at all. with a penchant for the inconsistent, he warned about a deepernvolvement in the syri civil war. >> it is very easy to slip slide your way into deeper and ddeper commitment because if it's not working immediately, then what ends up happening is six months from now people say, well, you

gave the heavy ar tilry and now what we need is x and now what we nned is y. because until assad is defeated in this view, it's never going to beenough, all ght? >> so for now the president ems content to offer aid and that aid by the way is beginning to add up. president obama pledging another $300 million in humanitarian assistance, half of which will be sent to syria and half will be divided between refugees and nati country. which means the total to more than $800 million, most of the money committed over the past two months and any resolution in syria willha to wait until peace talks which have been heduled for next month in geneva are to be held before august. the president still hasn't given a clear defense of the nsa and

surveillance programs and for that matter neither has congress. my first guest, general alexander said -- andrew mccarthy is the author of the best sellers, jihad and t grand ver. nice to have you with us. general alexander was forth ght it seemed. he made a compelling case and even since in that committee with the hearing room the committee was growing up a little. i didn't hear what congressman ship started givg thh general valuable advice i'm sure but it seemed more mature than it's been. >> you have a real ault who was in complete mmand of the facts and i think mde the most compplling defense of this program. now, i don't think it will be

enough because there's nothing like the bully pulpit a as effective as general alexander is, he's not the president. these programs really need the fensof the oval offic and specifically president obama. >> the president's defense of his administration, this agency, rose to th vel. he thought it was pretty transparent, the prism program. what does he need to be effective in t defense of nsa and his own administration? >> anything but transparent but i think after five years with the oh, passty of this administration transparent i the butt of a joke that will be effective in the discourse. he needs to explain much like general alexander did why we need these programs and what the stctural civil liberties protections are in them because the run away freighttrain here is that people who are opposed to the program and saw the issue

as a way to relitigate everhing they lost when the patriot act was authorized, have stolenhe narrative here and basically have people thinking that the intelligence community is actively spying on americans. >> i tnk today -- if i'm correct in sensing some higher level of maturity the part of the committee. perhaps it's about to ebb. they of course always have the reinforcing value of e national media given the politics of the matter. but hopefully we'll see more attention paid to the chinese cyber attacks in this country than on trying to take up the timef those who are leading the effort to protect the country and its infrastructure. let me turn to the g 8 summit in bellfast. the president talked away basically slapped around by putin. it was an abysmal performae

for the united states. >> how could it be anything but though. you have ideological progress sifs w think that the way to conduct the foreign pocy is not to be guided by the compass of our own vital interests but to be part of a community in which we recruit countries that are hostile to the united ates, very much included russia and give us a to and th is largely because we're living in barack obama's world and which is the result of it. >> and we will be doing so for some time and in the matr of days we'll be taking up direct talks, the united states will, with the taliban, on a resolution in afghanistan. i mean, this turns our history, our foreign policy for decades

on its ad and leads where? >> it leads to where common sense takes you which is that a war has a wier a a loser and if you don't stay in it to win it, you lose. a t of what has gone on from the president's speech about how he's's basically declaring that the war is over without having to do the hard work to end it in a positive way, they're trying to dress this up into somethi other than a humiliating defeat for the united states. >> andrew mccarthy, good to have you with us. >> thank you. >> what should edward snowden with treated with? our analyst judge andrew

♪ joining us now fox news senior judicial analyst judge andrew napolitano. judge, edward snowden has brought the world down arnold his head by stepping out on this. some people describe him as a hero, others as a traitor. where are you? >> i have described him as an american hero when i first learned of this and i continue to stand that position. if he didhat he said he did, if he is the person who revealed all the government's unconstitttional behavior, h's confronted with the following. an oath to keep seet the information he was given, on oath to uphold the constitution and a clash betwee the two. so what do you do? which is higher? his oath to keep secret or his

oath to follow th constitution. the constitution is the supreme law of the land. he has a moral and constitutional obligation to reveal it. >> you used the hypothetical, if. there are a lot of hypotheticals in this. rit now i don't know specifically what he's charged. i haven't heard it from him. >> i don't think any -- what he's charged or been charged with? >> what he is charging. represents a violation of the constitution or law. it's unclear. as you step forward and others have to call him a hero, does it give you some trepidation the timing because we are in a speculative era, the timing of s revelations which wiped away a two day summit between the president of the united states and the president of china. his presence in hong kong and his charges that the united states was hacking chinese locations and facilities, does

that all give you any dis quiet? >> it doesn't trouble me at all. the timing of the revelation was set by the reporters to whom he spoke. he's been speaking to them for a long time. secondly, i reject the idea that we should dwell on him, his background or his motivation. we should dwell on what the government has done to us in our name. you used an interesting phrase, whether this is legal or constitutional. they're different. >> i used both of them. >> you did. i'd like to dwell on that for a moment. the congress thinks it can write any la and regulate any behavior and tax any event. in congress mind whatever it says is legal is legal. but because the constitution restraints them, prohibits a search warrant for 113 million american when they are looking for two or three, it's unconstitutional. when the government has done is legal because the patrt act authorizes it but unconstitutional because the

congress h attempted to disregd the constitution. >> it will be interesting to see where you come down whe all t facts are known. >> weearn more facts every day. >> we do and i can't imagine why one wouldn't be dis quieted but you're a man of courage and intellect. >> you mean it takes courage to hit here? >> not at all. >> i'd like to come back when we learn morr about it. >> you've got a deal and we will make it frequently. the white house overloaded with scanls. connection to nature is a right

that the trust for public land is fighting to preserve. from boulevards to ball fields d ponds to playgrounds, together we have saved over 3 million acres of land. a park is a gift that is worth protecting.

help support the trust for public land and the gift of parks today.

>> there's ahile during the president's first term it seemed he could do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters, at least the national media awell. now e obama whe house scandals are coming at such a furious pace nearly everyone seems to have a problem with at ast one of those controversies d scandals. take a look at justsome of these. one,he internal revenue service, if you pay taxes you miiht be a littleupset with th wheer it's because they

targeted conservative groups or spend millions of dollars on conferences. the liberal national media is over this scandal by the way. the big three networks have gone from having 96 stories about the irs in the first two weeks when the scandal broke to one story this week. we have little problem with the way they apoach thingss you might ess. if you happeto believe congress has the right indeed the obllgation tonow what our government is doing at home and abro abroad, you may be offended by the administration's mine month stone wall on benghaziand roger ails put it ell when he said, quot i've come to the conclusion that i don't even care what the president of the united states was doing that night but i would like to know what the commander in chief was doing that night. if you believe in the first amendment, the freedom ofhe

press, the white house's sweeping record seizure of documents, should cause your blood to boil over along with the associated press intrusion. fourth, if you are one tho crazy constitutionalists and actually believe in the second amendment anyour rights, you might be upset to learn vice-president biden is rebooting his push for gun control next week so you can look forward tothat. if you bieve in the national interest and plain spokenness from the president's administration, you may be curious as to why this white houswon't characterize snowden as aoutright traitor. perhs at the hang on to the idea that is just a coincidence that nsa leaks came athe same time the president was holding summit with the chinese counterart on chinese cyber attacking. you haven't seen a story aout it at all in the wake of these

leaks. six, if you get fired up over women's rights and abuse of power, this administration in general will bet you're revoeltd by accusation that the state department covered up accusations into sexual consult and prostitution. 7, if you believe the obama's administration's claims that ey would be the most transparent in history, it probly ticks you off that political appointees and head of agencies have been using secret e-mail accounts to conduct official government business. we'll find out me surely. so the president has all these scandals going on and he doesn't even have a nickname like tricky dick nixon or slick willie clinton. this president does it seems need a nickname given all this. we thought it would be interesting to invite you to share ideas as to what that

nickname would be. e-mail me at lou at loudobbs.com. by the way, just to get you started, our executive producer came up with the first idea, we've already discounted it. hi offering was the bamboozler. pretty good, right. let's hear your ideas. president obama and putin agreeing to disagree on syria. what's next for the co hmm. [cell phone beeps] hey! [police whistle blows] [horns honking] woman: hey! [bicycle bell rngs]

urn here. there. excuse me. uh. uh. [indistinct announcement on p.a. system] so, same me next week? well, of course. announcer: put away a febucks. feel like a million bucks. for free tips to help you save, go to ♪ feed the pig

>> f more now on the different perspectives on syr from the president's putin and obama, we welcome now fox news middl east dr. waleed and f news military contributor. we thank y for being with us.

this meeting amounted to what as they declared they had different perspectives and basically agreed to disagree? >> well, that what they've done in northern ireland. the reality on the ground is different. on the ground you hhve a very aggressive syrian regime as we heard in the introduction as the irans across syria on the other hand an unstoppable al qaeda penetration of the opposition. so the only group with whom we can partner is now being weakened. at's the free syrian army and the secular people of the free syria army and we don't have a syria plan. weave a syria ste after step t we don't have comprehensive strategic plan so fa >> general, we're listening to senator mccain, senator graham and a handful of others but primarily from the republican party saying that we've goto get involved, there has to be a

no fly zone. we have to start arming these rebels. it is a peculiar thing in washington that is eruptingfor support for another conflict in the mile east. your thoughts? >> i don't think they know what they're talking about. they're talking about supporting general e dress and ease not the one that we just talked bout. dr. paul, a former fox military analyst has met on two occasions and they are secular. they are the ones we nedo help but we're talking about arming the wrong people. as far as a no fly zone goes, lou, the only no fly zones are in the united statesver our air basis where we've grounded one third of our tactical air and now they want to crank it up. we aren't readiness-wise prepared t do this. could do it, sure but it

would be a great cost to us. it's not going to happen with th administration because they do not have a serious strategy on what to do with syria and what our goals are. that's the very worrisome thing. >> it's all about unconceivable that the united states with the very same leershiphat has d us to the result in iraq and afghanistan that the american people and even a would think of those strategies in command. >> we don't have a stomach for it, the public doesn't have a stomach for it. >> let me be clear. i wasn't talking about having the stomach for it but the good judgments and the intelligence, i'm referring to the american

peopople, to tell failed leader don't both. >> you have a point. we are not yet talking to the right people. if we wa to do anything about it, the administration maximum goal at this point in time is to bring back some st of balance of power between the opposition in general without defining what is the opposition and the assad reme in the hope to take everybody to geva where the russians are waiting there not to help us and ge us a veto. thatoad is notoing to a solution. the her critiqueoming from inside washington, from some members of congrs is that we're going to do an all outno fly zone over syria. the general was right when they said there are commanders of the fsa who are secular. they should be invited to

washington, not istanbul, but to coss clarify what syria ww're going to see after assad if at all. >> talking with the chief of staff in the unit states air force some years ago he pointed out toe that we have had our air power engaged, at that time it was some years ago, but now 's 22 years that we have had our air power engagednd no fly zones, in combat whether it's now in afghanistan. this has been an unprecedented persistent use of air power and an air force that has been taken to its limits. has it not? >> absolutely. in those years we've worn a lot of the equipment out. we have not modernized the f 22 which would be absolutely reired inyria if the russians put in the 300 service missile. you have to be steth if you are

doing to survive in that. so fdamentally we have 100 f 22s that are capable of operating in this regime. over this time frame we've continued to draw down the number of squadrons that we have. we've put them in the bone yard through sequestration and other budget cuts. lou, you are spot on. we have over the last years, we're not the same air force that we were 22 years ago. >> and we're deploying f16sto jordan i'm not entirely sure what will be the result of tht. we are looking at continued incremental steps toward ratcheting up at let the potential for conflict. what would be the outco if we do engage in ru and are we preparedor such a conflict? is this commanr in chief prepared for such a conflict?

>> i don't have an answer to that. what i can say is there iso strategiplan. there are three conditions for our success in syria. number one to partner with the right people. we want to see them in washington. number two, we need to tell quarter and the other arab stops stop funding and three, we need to be preparedor confrontation with he's bull la and iran. >> general, you get the last word as we watch presidents putin and obama come to no conclusionn tir meeting. >> president ptin wants to humilie president obama and if president ama doesn' understand that he's goi to be humiliate humiliated. radical are being unded in this particular venture so the moderates are not getting the

funding they need. we've exposesed ourselves to a combination of challges that if we do something we have to go in big time and the american people have not been explained about why we should go do this d we do not have a strategy that would support that structure to go in and try to resolve this problem. it is not a very good decision that we've left the american peop. perhaps the israelis are going to have to pull it out themselves >> gentlemen, thank you very much. the irs scandal targeting conservative groups, delaying applications, playing politics and maybe, maybe committing felonies. felonies. jay [beep]

[indistinct chatter] [kids talking at once] [speaking foreign language] [heart beating] [heartbeat continues] [faint singing]

[heartbeat, music playing louder] ♪ i'm feeling better since you know me ♪ ♪ i was a lonely soul, but that's the olde... ♪ announcer: this song was created with heartbeats of children in need. find out how it can help fronine health workers bring hope to millions of children at everybeatmatte.org.

>> my next guest is representi 25 conservative organizations

that are suing the s claiming their constitutional rights were violated. joining us now is jay sekulow, chief counsel for the american center for law and justice. good to have you here. >> thanks for having me. >> thiis a monumental if i may say, monumental legal action to go after the internal revenue service. you're going to have jacob lou, steven miller, holly paas and other unknown irs officials. how did you determine them? >> the reason we listed those individuals, we based on the information that we had during the process of examination hen these groups we trying to get tax exempt we knew who we wer dealing with. steve miller said he had no idea, he coul't remember anybody's name i had the agt's names, the

letters from lois lerner. we named the complaint. those who h knowledge of or actual engagement in the unlawful acts of the irs. we have listed ten or more unknowns. until we do the discovery we're not goingo know how deep or high up it went. we're going to be amending that complaint in the next week or ten days,dding another 25 organizations and additional counts in the co some areas that we have's since learned that we're concerned about. it is a monumental undertaking. we filed a complaint that says you unlawfully targeted. normally they would say denied. how are wegoing to deny it because we attached the statements where we admitted .

>> the response from lois lerner in particular, not oly an acknowledgment and admission of guilt but th an apology which compounds i would think the evidence on your behalf. it does. i mean, the fact that she made the admission and we got the inspector general's report where they acknowledge and uncover the targeting. they keep calling it targeting but targeting i a violation of the constitution. you cannot target someone based on their viewpoint. i have doneemultiple cases on that. i said this the other d on your roadcast. i think the irs is institutionally incapable of self-correcting. this afternoon the irs placed on administrative lea two more officials, one in charge of the obama care, affordable care act enforcement. thegency in complete melt down in my view.

what needs to happen, i think they should scrap the whole internal revenue cord but short of that we need justice for our clnt that these unconstitutional acts stop. >> you talked about changes, damages claims that have to be satisfied here by an agency of the federal government that under our constitution is supposed to be serving the american people, not targetg them. it's clear that they were doing precisely that throug their own admission. what damages will youikely succeed or do you want to succeed in recovering from the until revenue service for your clients. >> they need their exemptions. a number of tse groups before we got involved incurred substantial legal fees ying to comply withhese qutionnaires that were comg from the irs. they need reimbursement and we

have clients that have lost grants. we talked abouttthis before, this particular group that was picked up in this dragnet of the irs. they weren't a tea party group but a conservative organization and they were picked up in this dragnet and ended up losing a grant of $30,000. that there's real damages here and then of course there's the gettg the government to stop because despite protests to the contrary, jay carney's statements to the contrary, the reality is on may6 of 2013 we received another letter from one of our clients with ridiculous questions. the process has not stopped and we need to get the government to correct itself and without a court order they're not capable of doing. >> jay, thanks for joining us. the rankneed to follow the rightrganization toward some satisfaction or justice against the irs and the federal

government. >> google facebook, do they deserve our@í0x;ñt

>> apple, yahoo! google and microsoft all now claim that they knew nothg about the so called prism surveillance program, but our nt guest says we've already given up contro of data and platforms to the very companies under discussion. joining us to discuss whether or not we have any control at a over our privacy an security on the web, bruce mier. he's a security expert and author of liars and outliars.

bruce, it's great to have you with us. i thinthat as a serity expert you probably have the best opportunity to explain to us why anyone suld not start laughing outloud when google and apple and facebook start talking about they deserve more respect from us because teyave just a few thousand request is from nsa and other agencies when they are the ones taking our personal and private information and dis s nati it across the web, aren't they? >> we are aef ving it to them. it's not that they're taking it. the n has to do with them taking t. we're giving it to these companies. in some ways that's the way the web works. they need us to trust them with our data, our friends, our photos, but their real business is betraying that trust to advertisers.

that's their business model. they try to hide it somewhat. they're transparent somewhat but they real rely on us not noticing. the fact tt they had a sideline betraying us the government as well is justne more thing. >> i'm curious about this because -- by the way, i didn't sathat the companies took the information. i said they dis sem nate it various ways across the web. that is the business model. facebook in particular doesn't care what your privacy preferences are. they're going to do what they will. i find that utterly maddening that people are buying that posture almost unquestioned. >> there's a conflt of interest here. ese are the very same types of correlations that you see in prism that facebook and googl and others do to better serve

you ads. the difference is going to be the false positives. if google makes a mistake, they

i think it's going to be for a while. that is the way the world works. if you pick a company at random data is in the icloud you're trusting them. you're giving them all your data. there's a reason y do it but you hope that there are interests align with yours. in a lot of these cases, facebook is an example, google, u're not their customer. you're their product they sll to their customers. so the normal customer vnder relationship doesn't apply in the same way. it's the fact that we are increasingly the prduct, that our data is the product makes us really into search for these companies producing data that they use to sell to advertisers and to the government. >> i think you make as i said a fascinating point. but i think we have to persist

in that point and extend it out as far as we can. you talk about we make this tradeoff about our privacy, for convenience of the alignment of interest. at could be a greater alnment of interest than the nsa and a government that is ting in our interest to protect usrom terrorist, or a greater convenience than to still be alive at the end of a day thanks to this broad surveillance program. there's a certain political, if you will, group in this country identifiable, easily identified that really hates the nsa doing precisely what googlend facebook a doing. but in ea instae their acts are almost analogous in both the alignment as you say of terest and the convenience,he tradeoff that is not always conscious, not always understood

by conservatives. >> right. this is what we need to understand. the question is what's being done and how effective is it? we are the taxpayers. we are the ones who pay for this, who make that tradeoff. so we need to be told how effective these programs are. there's been a lot of wheezeling. they might have been effected in some things. examples given have tued out toe fse. we don't know whether these programs do an good. weon't know how much they cost, is this a good u of our money? they're very unlikelyo be effective. this is why secrecy is bad. we need to know what t government is doing, understand what they're doi. if they're doing a good job, great. if they're doing a lousy job we need to fix it. this is what snowden did that was so good. he gave us information about

what the governmt is doing in our name with our money. let's find out if it's effective. we have never seen a case that's effective or cost effective. >> why aren't people challenng the business models in t aggregate a highly concentrated and powerful group of companies that could as easy be called like facebook, microsoft and -- did i mention facebook? let me do it again. thesareisturbing inconstencies and contradictions when we start to look at those. we start to lay bare something else everybody shoulbe aware of and that is the politics of those who are most exercised about, say, the nsa and those beginning to get pretty exercised about corporates who are really driving the virtual world in which we find great experience andvalue.

>> there are two reasons. one i mentioned is at the harms are less great. being shown a wrong ad because you're misclassified is different than being investigated because you're misclassifie >> whoa, wait a minute. it's almost ubiquitous privacy iseing invaded by the corporates. there is a very narrow, small number w are being investigated by the government. they are not analogous on either size, scale or incident, but we're going to have to pick this up because, bruce, as you said, we could talk for -- come on back and let's continue the conversation. i think it's a fascinatg perspective you bring to it and we appreciate you sharing your insight. come on back >> thank you. >> bruce nyer. up next we're going to be talking about the brand new book, the founding

conservatives, troubles at the creation and how our founding faths dealt with them and the people who brought

when some peoe struggle with their mortgage payments, they become frozen, petrified. not knowing what to do, they do thing, but the people who do something, the people who take action, are far more likely to get the most positiveutcome. making home affordable is a free government program. call now to talk one on one with a housing expert

about the options that are right for you. real help, real answers right now.

♪ lou: a new >> a new book sheds light o some lesser known conservatives who helped secure freedom during the revolutionary war. joining me now is david lefer, professor at nyu ae polytechnic institute. thor of thi book the founding conservatives, now a group of unsung heros saved the american revolution. congratulatis on the book. >> thank you. it's an honor to be here. >> we wish you the ery best of th book, ba massive success. i love the subject and your thinkingn it. let's start with you point out the three main arguments. i'd like to go through them quickly. founding conservatives saved

the american revolution just as important as you said, but who were these conservatives first and why hasn't much until now been made of them? it's the remarkable story and the history of theamerican revolution is itself a fascinating subject that we go on and on about. they saved the american revolution in multiple ways. robert morris single handedly financed the army. without him the army would ve grounded to a halt. you have james wilson and governor morris who wrote large parts of the united states constitution. these founding fathers are well known to historians but they have pretty much been totally left out of popular histories. >> i find fascinating you say we shouldn't be looking too much to bron, the united kingdom as the foundation for conservative thought and philosophy but rather, you say that the first

modern conservativeas british statesma edmond burke. >> most histories trace the conservavism back to burke i discovered that everything burke stood for and said was said a decade and a half earlier by the american founding 3 c1 conservatives. it struck me as strange and fascinating that conservative similar that is all about heh heritage doesn't know its ownn har tank. >> the thinkers, the intellectuals, thomas jefferson, a conservative? >> he was far moreradical. one of the most surprising things i discovered in the book is johadams was quite rdical throughout the revolution. he changes his thinking toward the endf it. >> conservativm itself, give

us your view day of what statement its in. i have toell you, i can't always recognize a consertive. >> i think these conservatives i write about offer two leons. the first is that they compromise, they fout tooth and nail for this country, let me emphasize that. they fought tooth and nail for this country. they compromised for the good of the nation. they t patriotis before politics. theyere facing a world of changing definite graphics. they were losing voters as free men from the lower classes and the middle classes, the right to vote. these conservatives started losing their vote. they had to offer one thing to get their vote. that was prosperity. they said we will ing free market capalism to amica. itill make the people strong and rich. >> these modern conservatives as we look around us, prosper us, brilliant, engaged?

>> conservatives face a similar tension today, how do you deal with the complaining lector at and stay relevant. >>e're going to see that answered. ♪ gerri: hello, everybody, i'm gerri willis, right to the top story. the woman at the center of the irs scandalmay be forced to come out and speak. lois lerner refused to answer question about the targeting of conservative groups declaring she did nothing wrong. the house oversight committee today ruling she waived the 5th amendme rights and can take her to federal court if she refuses to answer or her actions. joining me, director for public notice. gretchen, welcome to the show. great to have you here. did