♪ >> children. >> you save. john: in 1984 has come to america. >> this big brother has done a lot greedr than georgerwell thought it wou never get. when you call grandma in nebraska the nsa knows. john: the president says you have notng to worry about. >> nobody is listening to your telephone calls. john: government officials do like. >> does the nsa collect any te of data at all? >> no. john: my fellowibertarians are mad me. they say, i am not angry enough. >> you know, i don't think this is john stossel. i think it is an impostor. john: i'm angrier than she is. >> i don't mind. 's not like it will be on tmz. john: big brother and privacy.

that's our show tonight. ♪ >> and now john stossel. ♪ john: 65 years ago, that novel stck a chord. ople feared the future would bring government spying on us through telescreens that were everywhere, even in our bedrooms. big brother was watching. whenomputers became popular people feared that the internet would become government'way of controlling s. we libertarians said, no, the opposite is true. the intert and personal computer revolution is have freed us from all kinds of government corol. it did, but lately we learn about several orwellian like intrusions on our privacy. mostecently that the national security agency tracks our phone call and some e-mails. this is a terrible threat to ameran liberties, says congressman justin amash.

congressman, why? they are just minding the debt. they're not listening to o phonealls. >> well, it violates the nstitution. the fourth amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, and is clearly violates the fourth amendment. the problem we havis that the government is gathering informatn using what is essentially a general warrant, which was outlawed by the constitution. they're going after people,ot -n the basis of any suspicion, not on the basis of anyroble cause, but jus because they're peopleust because the information is useful to the gornment. that is what our founders expressly prohibited with the constitution. john: i is useful to need to if it keeps me from being blown up by a trorist. the fact that they are just standing everybody in some ways makes it seem lik less ofn invasion of privacy. >> well, the reason the founders believed it was wron is because we did not want the government collecting this kin of affirmation. that p the constitution in place to prevent the government from iecting itself into our

personal affairs. and you can't do away with a lot of the constitution and argue that maybe that makes us safer. you could also do away wit the first amendment, second amendment, third amendment, fifth, sixth, seven. jo: i don't want to do that. >> well, someone could argue and say, look, now the government can control everything, preventing crime. i doubt i would work veryell, but that is what they could argue. of course we would have a police state which is exprely prohibited by the constitution. @%e reason we have a constitutions to prohibit the government from doing ts. john: believing the constitutional argument for a moment, can you make is live from the more? i don't see how my privacy is bein invaded by these massive scs? >> well, that's fine if you completely tru the government. john: i don't >> the government can use the information, for example, to blackmaicorpatexecutives. they could use thenformation

to persuade members of congress to vote a certain light, and they can use the information against the public. we do not want culture in our country ofistrust, of year. my parents came from the middle east. they came from regimes that were tyrannical. and in those couries people were afraid to talk on t phone, they're free to talk to their neighbors because they're afraid everyone is a spy. weon't want that kind of culture. it has a damaging effect on our culture. john: you can i see it here. i made up this list of 100 things i hate more than the -- or as much as the nsa spine. and where do w write ts? coming, you believe in liberty. is it woe that they do this data mining and t fact that they employ 22 million people? where our kids must go to school, a17 trillion deficit, that they passed dddd-frank, that there are bailouts.

how much can we bengry about? >> i think its all bad, but when you have direct violations of the constitution, when you have someone trying to infringe upon the fourth amendment or the firs amendment of the second amendment, those are serious threats against liberty, and more serious in many ways than the kind of financial exploitation that the government is involveed in. it is true that the government is bloed. there has been no better advocate for balanci the budget and getting our debt under control than me, butt the same time, we have to look at this, our cil liberties. that is why we had a revolution back in the 1700's, because of civil liberties violations he. john: in the 1700's we get the fourth amendment partly because british soldiers were going in people's homes and taking stuff and searching your m private space. hal is looking for patrns in a billion phone calls anywhere like that? >> well, the problem is the lel theory they're using.

the legal theory they're using that any time you use of third-party provider to store any of your documents, and most papers to there are electronic, digital. some most of the papers that we have in modern times are digal papers. the government is using the false and flawed logic and argument that that is all available the public. once you put it out on a third-party server, the %-obtain it because it is no longer private. that is ridiculous. john: what do you say to the claim that maybe 50 terrorist incidents were stopped? >> we don't even know if that number is accurat most ofhe information is classified. we cannot get to the botto of -t. frankly a lot of the court opinio that deal wit these cases are classified in a way where members of congress cannot get the opinions. part of a we are doing with our bill is trying to make sure that the cases are available to membs of congress. right now i actually can not read the court opinions that are

terpreting laws like the patriot act. john: itertainly is a problem when they say it's sret, trust us. congressman justin amash thank you. >> thanks. john: the other side to what congressman mike pompe supporting the nsa spine. congressman, why? you heard what your fellow republicans said. >>hank you for having me on the show. the good news in this case is that we don't have to give up any constitutional rights. we can keep america safe. these programs that the nsa are conducting despite what representative justin amas said , are wholly onstitutional and there is incredible oversight from all three branches of government, exactly how the founders intende it, article one oversight, folks like me who sit on the hou intelligence committee. the program that is run bb article to an article three courts. confirmed. bees are programs that have been

conducted lawfully and constitutionally. representative justin amash has kept a lot of americans say for a long time. john: you have up record of being skeptical of government. what you trust them on this? >> d't trust individuals. there is no one who brings a deeper distressed to the federal government to washington d.c. then me, but i have seen this process. the concerns that representative justin amash has about this data, he talks about them listening to calls and data minng. that just isn't happening. even mr. snowden has not done a single thing thats unlawful. he is not uncovered a singge task that there has been an unlawful action. john: is it okay for them to just lie to us? %-intelligence says this when asked about government surveillance. >> does the nsa collect any type of datata a all on millions or hundreds of millions of americans?

>> no,ir. john: what are t rules? >> the rules are you tell the truth. in that case, i've heard his story. is totally unacceptabl that is not how he should have answer the question. he should have been more careful or given probably the most appropriate ansr. the are classified programs and i cannot talk about it in this setting. i am happy to share that with you in an appropriate setting. john: down the baguys already assumed that we're doing this? is this rlly revolution? >> i'm sure th assume a lot of things. it is important to these programs remain secret and classified in many cases. i can tell y this, already after mr. edward snowden release of this information through the guardian national securit agency information indicates that terrorists areehaving differently. they might well have suspe that some of this was going on, but ty leard a couple of things. not only what was going on, but they also leaed the legal limits of the program. having shared that ivery

dangerous and allows the enemy at insight and things reviewing. coquee's the really bad guys, the terrorists who ill want to kill us. john: are rare time when you are in full agreement with our commander-in-chief. >> you cannot have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and its zero inconvenience. jo: you agree, i take i >> well, i sort of agree with the president commanded would be a rare time when i aeed with this president. i don't view this iue as partisan in any fundamental way. john: it is not clear how crucial financial secury data mining is. the senator pois so we already have so much stated that the fbi misses. >> we can't seem to keep up with the people we have bn told about. the underwear bomber.

his dad turned demand. cannot keep up with them. he got on a plane. they think somehow there will go through billions of bits of information every day. john: was your answeto that? >> here is a glorious thing. we're not going through these billions of things every day. the collection of phone records that edward snowden has talked about is not being used for data mining. there being used when they're a specific terrorist case that we can identify and say we think w have informationhat leads us to want to get checked these phone records. it is not the case that we're constantly data mining. very specific uses of information with approval by the sa court. i guess my last thought is this, no program is going to cch them all. there is no way you can ever create a perfect system and cash everyingle inciden of teorism, but thess programs have been important and effective and are absolutely critical to rounding out our nation's intelligee collection apparatus.

john: thank you, congressman mike pompeo. >> thank you, john. john: coming up, as i sd before, libertarians are mad at me. some call me disgusting. a libtarian in name only. ouresponse to that later. next, a government intrusion i really am ary about. the irs abuse of people who have the wrong ideaa it. >> why are they in my kitchen? why are they looking to buy

♪ >> conservatives have private confidential tax information leaked and conservative groups were systematically targeted by the irs. john:hat is scandal that is clearly worth getting angry about. congress in its wisd has decided that if you are runng to and advocacy groups you don't get that tax deduction if they spend more than 50 percent of the money on political activity. we lrn that the irs selected 500 conservative and tea party groups for extra scrutiny. agents were told to be on the loout for wor like liberty compatriot, constitution. irs bureaucrats denied tax deductions to t party groups for more than a year and

harassed them with question afteruestion period in a few cases they leao their donor list, sometimes to lt-wing groups. that is despicable. this is just a raw political abuse. brooke rollins runs one of business that was abused, the texas public policy foundation. >> what happened to us in the spring of lt year, 2012, our donor list a as a charitable organization, which is why we are, we have to file with the irs the list of our of larger donors. but, as you kno that list is supposed to remain anonymous and the irs in return promises to blackout every name before it releases that information about the organization. john: why should i be anonymous? people see if you give to a political cause it ought to be known >> this goeba to the founding of our country in my opinion. the right to associate and to engage i inherent in a

democracy. john: you have a right to assoate. you just have to be public. >> let's go back to the civil rights movement. alabama versus naacp, the state of alabama tried to force the naacp during the civ rights era to disclose their donors. as we all know, why would they? itould because they think that they could threaten those people not to give money anymo or %-to back down. of the naacp they knew that the current state of affairs in alabama would change unless they were able to undercut or dilute the naacp power and what they were trying to do. the u.s. supreme court said absolutely not. we have rights as americans to remain anonymous when we support this is ideas we believe in. john: likewise your donors know that if my name is publicized media ll be harassed the way that others have been. >> that is exactly right. not surprisingly, on our lt as well as many of the great americans and entrepreneurs.

when the left seize control of this list and wrote about it in their magazines, blocks, websites, that harassment started to come about absolutely. john: then there is that targeting. this did not happen to you. you already have a tax exempt status. this happens to other at first the irs commissioner says there is no targeting. a year later the truth was revealed in response to a question that was planted. an irs commissioner said mistakes were made by people trying to be more efficient. if you say tea partieratriot that's an advocacy group. >> what is amazing and the news stories today or yesterday, wait, wait. we have progressive and art list. john: this just hapned. >> we weren't really targeting nservative spirit retarding everybody. but have you seen e progressive group step forward

wait a minute, you delayed us for two years, made us put in 3,000 pages of documents. there quest to become isc4. we have not seen any of that. that begins our country. that is the crossroads where we are. john: and when government is so big and you want a tax deduction , you have to give them of disinformatio and it does not end until you mentned the 23 pages of documents. >> 23,000 pages. that's right. john: the coalition for life was asked to explain inetail the activity atrayer meetings. provide the percentage of time yourroup spends on prayer grps cpared to other activities.

one group, the american patriots against government excess -- i li that name -- was required to provide a synopsis of every book read. the president of the group said i don't have time t provide a book report. u can read them for it yourself. john: -- >> augusta the bigger point it was happening must top. th is why we have to stand up and say no. john: some on the left don't see any problem with what the irs did. the former head of the tax division. >> i could not find anything that suggested the irs had acted inappropriately. perhaps ineffectively, but not inappropriately. >> i have not seen what they did wrong. they are supposed to evaluate how much polical activit lot 501(c)3 wants to engage in.

john: no problem. >> no problem. it is all just fine. the fact that those guys can stand up and say that to me is astonishing. it ao, in my opinion, gives such a great opportunity for the people of this country to stand up and say no more lahood. john: we hope that will happen. coming up, more ways your privacys invaded. back to the nsa data mining. i don't mind ithat much. we will try to get ecated. a libertarian i am not. >> i don't think this is john stossel.

♪ john: i'm cious that my government all the time. on my web page i pted this list of 100 things tt enrage me about governments over reached. the irs bias against tea party groups is disgusting. farm subsidies, benghazi, corporate welfare, minimum-wage.

it is all disgusting. i could go on 100 times. in fact, i couldrobably get to 200. government computers scanning everybody's phone records to see patterns tha might lead to terrorists? i'monflicted about that. judge andrew napolitano says i should not b i shoul be furious. educate me. >> i think you should be furious becae you believe that have natural rights that come from our humanity, among which is the right to be left alone, to preserve the right to be left alone, the right to privacy. john: left alone by terrorists. >> you also want to be left alone by the government because of the government does not leave you alone you will have no privacy. people do not behave normally, naturally, or to their full extent when they're being watched by the government and then made it -- be the government's permission. when the government knows every phone call we make from where we make the call, to limit the call, how long the call was, where they were, and can plug that into there out rhythms they

can predict all kinds of behavior about us and they are not entitled to any of it under the constitution without a search warrant. john: i stil just don't peonally feeeel the threat. i give up all of this private information and much more to facebook. >> but you do so willingly and decide not to. john: government is a force. >> now you're coming around. you cannot avoid the government. john: and facebook cannot lock me up or assassinate me. but my information is out there. so you say that they can look at all f this intercepting it in the air. your information is not out there. john: it is flying through the air. these electronic waves. don't you assume they are hacking your information. >> they do not ptect me from the government. the fourth amendment does. media matters, just like fox news, just like facebook, are free to do things that the

govement is not. at is whwe have this fourth amendment to mike -- to keep the government out of our bankbook and bedrooms and frankly off of our back. which is worse? a renegade former spy divulged the truth about government lawbreaking, or that government officials lie about what he exposed? john: and picking up on your which is worse theme for something else, i have anger fatigu this worse than our $17 trillion debt, the drug war, what we have done to the american indians and so one? >> i don't know if it is worse than tt, but it could lead to something th is. john: could lead? >> yes, of course. the slippery slope. i mean, a single phone call in the computerf a single spine is innocuous. all of our phone cls reveali everything aut ourselves, exposing our innermost thoughts and behavior to the goverent will

don't know what is. think of it this way. the government powers derive from the conse of the govement. john: did you consent to this? the terrorism fears overblown.

people were frightened consent to this. they can consents. >> not for the rest of us. thank you. john: here is wha the president said in response to criticism. >> and the people cannot trust not only the executive branch, but also don't trust congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that werebiding by the constitution and to process unblock then we will have some problems here >> absolute canard after benghazi, the associated press, the rose an affair in the irs, nobody trusts this administration. who would trust congress when they, like the senator whose heart is in the right place, were told what the nsa was doing but took an oath not to revl it. o would t trust these federal judges to granted 99. 5 percent of every alication sought before. john: who else do we have for oversight but congress and federal judges? john: transparency. when the government knows was governed -- going on ty will

be afraid to tmp our rights. they have created a bizarre system of secret courts, secret informatno the congress..3 congressman cannot tell anybody or vote. john: it is based on secrecy. >> they can spy on foreigners all they want. i did not authorize the government to spy o the command you did not authorize the government to spy on you. john: know, i did not. i wonder if there is not som justification in nsa spine. thank you, judge. i will keep trying to learn from you and oths. up next, often big brother onne more than our rords. it wtsur pictures. more and more sveillance cameras watch us. i hav gotten used tohat too. am i a complacent dope? we debate that next. ♪

♪ >> new colors toutore security cameras all across america to save us from another

attack. >> to you as oy with more surveillance? >> i want to get bombed. john: i don't want to get on either. and if cameras might discourage that or catch bombers, help stop otr crime, too, murders and robberies, i would say that's good. but the cameras are also a form of big brother watching all the time. sheriff russ martin says the loss of privacy is worth it. we are safer because of cameras. no, we are not says ginger mccall. cameras do not even work. she is with the electronic privacy of permission center. so what do you mean they don't work? assume that they catch bad guys. >> well, historically we he seen that cameras are neither effective at preventing crime, nor solving crime, particularly. john: what you mean? they are. this is how we found the boston marathon bombers. >> actually, it not necessarily a we found them. there were a lot of things going on.

eyewitness identification, surveillce cameras that were privately owned, not governmental surveillance cameras. eventually there were the fingerprts of the older brother. and we're in boston, there are gornment on surveillance cameras, it did nothing to preventhe bombing and we have seen two attempted bombings in britain which is one of the most heavily surveiled in lonn, which is one of the most heavily surveiled cities in the world. john: yet london is remarkable theory of 500,000 government cameras in london. they called it the ringf steel, the closest comparison in the united states is chicago. 10,000 camer versus 500. but, a london they h a they had an attempted bomng that did not work. and from that picres are what caught the bombers before they could do the third time. i would call that a success. >> not necessarily. again, if the cameras are really successful there would be no crime in london, no bombings in london. there it certainly not

successful at preventing. john: thais a high standard. what is the heart? these cameras reveal very private informatn. a reveal very private information about where you go, who you go there with, associational information, you're spending your time with. if a record audio, they can record youour conversations. they jusrecord video, it can record you going in to a gay the number of places that you uld probably not want other people to know you're going. john: shares martin, what about that? >> well, i think she is missing the point here, john. as a matter of fact, i think the boston bombers were prevented from committing other offses in their own city. so that video of surveillance helped identify the suspects. and although perhaps it did not prevent that itial offense, your preventing offenses down the road. i think it is an effective tool for law enforcement. >> i wan to point outere that in the instancef bosto it was not governmt-round cameras

that ended up helping to identify the spect pulled. private individuals a compies. >> law enforcement, we are less concernether the arab public or privately held. the fact that there are capturing an image in helping law enforcement, it is an effective pice of technology in 2013. john: share of martin, i should disclose, i have a nepotism nnection here. he is the father of might assistant to is here in the studio. but that should not affect the content. we just thought you would be a good spokesman. what do u say about the examples of abuse, the san francisco police officer use surveillance cameras to a women. nnw york cops were caught looming at cples embracing and fondling on rooftops. in alabama the cameras zoomed in on breasts and buttocks of several young women. >> of aolice officer is involved in an automobile crash, do we take all the policears and light? absolutely not.

those are individl incidents, and those officers needo be disciplined through the administrative process. so you don't take away the technology because of a single incident of abuse. john: thank you, sheriff and gingee. coming up to now when it comes to government spying, some people say you have nothing to hide what you worry about? theris plenty. government, like everyone, makes mistakes. government mistakes are more seous because government can take away your freedom. this oregon man and his dghter will tell us the terrible thing that happe every parent wants t safest and healthiest produs for their family. that's why i created the honest company. i was just a concerned mom, with a crazy dream. a wish that there was a company that i cou rely on, that did all of the hard wk for me. i'm jessica alba,

and the honest company was my dream. [ male announcer ] legalzo has helped a million businesses successfullyet started, including jessica's. launch your drm at legalzoom today. call us. we're here to help.

♪ john: one reason i am not that upset yet about the nsa tracking my phone calls is that i have alrey given up much of my privacy. facebook has access to all kinds of private informational tommy. but they're is a big difference between facebook, youtube, and the government. facebook cannot tell me or assassinate me. the government might. if you're not doing anything wrong you hav nothing to worry about say some people, but brandon mayfield and his daughter did nothing wrong. they live in ogon and never been to spain. after terrorist's bomb trains in

spain the fbi became convinced that brandon's fingerpri was on the bag of detonators down at the scene. what followed was a nightmare. >> i was in school on that day, may 6, 2004. qaeda picked up by my older brother, called into the office. he told me in a grim voice, let's go outside right now. i said, what's going on? he said, let's jusgo outside. i walked outside and looked at me and said, dad was arrested by the fbi. i was in total shock. i thought it was a joke. i said, good one. he kept walking. when we reached the dinne my mother was, she was crying. john: and you stayed in jail for two weeks. >> yes. i gotta knock on the door and there was a big, burly indivial, short hr, crewcut,

dimitive, female sang along the talk to me. originly at that mib solicitors and said. and then theyaid they identified that they were from the fbi. they show thr badges. and as ty had holsters with guns i wasn't particurly surprised at that point to be questioned by the fbi. i had just med to the portland community, and i wasearing stories from other people that they were being asked to talk to e fbi, being questioned, even llowed. john: even before that, you thought something weird was going on in your house. @% i hadad a creeping suspicion that people were watching as before this event occurred, potentntially even a year or moe before. and especially in t months after the attacks. john: why?

>> one of the biggest giveaways for me was a hd drive that was taken out of my computer desktop in my bedroom and not put back in properly. i don't know how computers work very well and did not know back then, but i was aware that someone had been tampering with my computer hard drive. the screws are not put back in properly on the desktop monitor. >> we learned later that the had almost 300 photographs of items in documents and our house. they had perris to our house when we were not there on more than one ocsion and at dawn and an looked through our hard drives, taken finger now clippings, dna samples. john: how did they g their fingerprint? your never been to spain. your passport had expired. wh you? >> i enlisted in the mitary in 1984. i went back in as anfficer through the rotc scholarship

programalled the gen to gold program. invariably i was fingerprinted. i was even -- i had secret clearance at one time. i worked for military intelligence. i had an application it is ironic. and apparently they had, you know, allegedly found a latent fingerprint -- it was called latent print number 17 on a blue bag that contained detonator is in a white man outside of the train station where the madrid train bombing occurred. that played and was then photographed and was sent to various agencies around the world, iluding the fbi fingerprint examination unit. john: to fbi examiners agree that the fingerprint matchours

>> i think it was actually three. john: an independent expert al agreed. so you must of been e bomber. points ofomparison, which is a pretty strong match, but unbeknownst to us -- and we did not learn until later -- the spanish police were diligently doing their criminal investigation and were looking at the print. they said it was not a match. john: my experience is when the police make a mistake they almost never even say sorry. in this case at least the fbi apologize to you. theyrote a letr. the fbi apologizes to mr. brandon mayfield and his family for the hardships that this matter cost and haveaid you to million dollars >> that counts for something. i grew up in the midwest. a handshake in someone's word goes a long way. i appreciate that, but o of e things that people forget

is we were not going to agree to anything. we discussed it. there are not going to agree unless who were able to challenge provisions of the patr act which amended the foreign intelligence surveillance act which made it possible for the government to do what they did. not only did they have a warrant for my arrest and search on the day was arrested, they also had secret warrants from a secret court that alled them to go in and do all of the snooping and spying that they did, even though they did not have probable cause to arrest me. as you said earlier in your segment, facebook, you just as some peoe looking at your data, but you don'think it will come after you. the government does. john: you could say, given the happy ending, that people worried about the tea for spying,ook, this is the worst case we could find. they apologized. and give you $2 million. maybe we should not fear the government.

>> i would like to chime in there. my biggest concern after my dad was released and continuing until today is that these policies are continuing to exist it's not so much that my dad was a victim of the government's polies, but i would like to say that he was symptomatic of the sort of polies that we have now. if it can happen to him, it can happen to others, and it may very well be it and we don't know about it. intel of fourth amendment right is restored and will be fully satisfied with just an apology. i have to see actions taken to show that this will never happen again to anyone. john: thank-you. we're out of time for this. coming up, says i am being hammered by libertarians, i will try to better explain why i am less bothered b the nsa than i ambout other things on this horrible list, my list of 100 nasty things goverent does. ♪

john: when the nsa data mining was revealed, i felt threatened. myovernment, whining a been secretly backing up data. i know what my government to know everythinn abt me. something's got to be private. the government says that the data help them prevent 15 terrorist incidents from the 50? i don't believe it.

bureaucrats always exaggate the value of their work. it is the homeland security state. people keepinn secrets are more prone to embellish. a spy says wha they do is constitutional, feder judges approve everything. they will t abe his power. i don't trust them. they always abu power. as one libertarian blogger put it, we will all suffer from the power of the nsa if we do not check in now. another libertarian weighed in defending the spying pointing out national security as an area where government istill desperately needed. in the wall street journal editorial at, data ming is less intrusive on individuals and routine airport security. that is certainly true. when started to think about other things my government does that i really hate or feel threatened by, i quickly had this list of 100 things. i encourage you to start your own list. it is revealing how easy it is to get to 100 well beyond.

some of these of less invasive than data mining, but all are horrible . these do did you worked up. the fact that government grew so ch that it now employs 202 million americans. outrageous. i'm curious about our debt and continued deficit spending for things like $100 million presidential trips, and dubious poon't work. e drug war causes crime and imprisons millions of americans diiproportionately minorities. that's horrible. so is corporate welfare and farm subsidies and the flood insurance thatelps people like me. the government keeping american indians poor by smothering them with socialentral planning. thats evil. so is too big to fail. and just having 170,000 pages of federal law that we are all supposed to obey. i am infuriated by more than

this list of 100 things that the government does. but data mining compared to all of these other abuses. i need to learn more about that. and for saying that libertarians now call me disgusting and a libertarian in name only. some agree with my list, but they also agree with the blogger who wrote, the existence of worse viotions is not a rean to dismiss pretty damn bad ones. that's true. i do not dismiss the danger in data mining. i don't. but keep in perspective. why is a newly discovered threat immediately declared much more outragus than all of these old ones? it is not. the nsa argument at least as two sides. terrorists want to kill us. if any terrorism is prevented by something as impersonal as dat mining, the end may ustify the means. i say the jury is out. government has plenty of other things that free people are

right to be furious about. we will keep reeorting on them. that's our show. thank you for watching. ♪ we're going to be eating more delicious food. >> what did you cut off? >> some sausage and burger, some ribs. a new fight against global warming sparking worries about a w freeze on job creation. president obama launching his latest green initiative. this one clamping down on power companies. businesses and lawmakers are both sides of th aisle calling it a war on coal and on jobs. >> declaring a war on coal is tantamount to declaring a w on jobs. >> i shoul not have to be sitting here as a u.s. senator ghting my own president. it mak no sense to rn our economy inhe most delicate of times. >> the continuation of the war on coal will onlyake matters worse, putting thousands and