for matt welch and kmele foster, thank you for making "the independents" part of your night. i'm kennedy. >> they have established the world's most islamic terrorists they. >> bomb them. bomb them again and again. and what do we do about isis? >> and annihilate them. shoot them, do everything to them. john: but how do we combat terror? that is our show tonight. ♪ ♪ off ♪

john: it has been 13 years since the september 11 attack. we went to war and killed many of the people that attacked us. but now a new group threatens us and the president says this. >> we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are. that means i will not hesitate to take action against isil in syria as well as a rack. john: will that make us safer? most americans want to bomb isis in syria. and is that possible and if we kill many of them, will that make us a for? one man who has said no to that for years is ron paul. and i assume that you still feel that way we met. >> more so than ever. i've looked at the last 24 years since the first persian gulf war. it makes the case for thomas jefferson'sicy of non-entanglements and trying to

have honest friendships with equal. because the more authoritarian we become in the and the more we force ourselves on others come the worst things yet. but we have to use spread american's greatness are you what it should be spread in a different manner. you can't spread to greatness by saying except us or else. it's about policy, and i think all of these years since 9/11, things have actually gotten worse. they say that we do this to preserve our constitution and freedom. but have we ever stopped to think are we more free since 9/11? took away our freedoms? it is our own government and people should look more domestically and foreign. because nobody is going to invade us and so the more we are over there -- john: it just takes an

individual terrorist these days and these fanatics hate america. >> that's the reason you want to have a different form policy because people should pay attention to what bin laden actually explains in one of the three main reasons there was an incentive to come here and harm us with the fact that we had killed a lot of people in iraq are a we have bombed them for over 10 years and even madeleine albright admitted when she was asked about this, how many children do you think i because where sanctions and our bombs. well, that is the price we have to pay. you think the muslims don't notice, and why don't americans take that into consideration? john: one thing to take into consideration, they would say look how well we did with this anorak. this surge in iraq. we had a relative peace and they were about to create a relative democracy had we hung in there and not lack.

we might have built a good country. >> hatred kept smoldering. we never left. look at how much harm we have done. so i think that there's part of this that we ended up believing in and propaganda. but the country has been ruined. and you say that we got rid of saddam hussein. it is that better? and why should we be the one to do this? the country is in shambles. and we lost these wars in the last 10 or 12 years and 10,000 americans, we have an epidemic of our veterans and trillions of dollars yet to be paid and bin laden is winning. the other goal that he had was to make sure that we bankrupt our country and we are doing a pretty good job of it ourselves. john: you haven't convinced your own son, it seems pretty wrote recently that i would have acted

more as decisively and strongly against isis. >> i don't speak for my son and i'm sure that he has good instincts as well. john: you must have some conversations about this. he supports airstrikes and he said that he would help reinforce israel's iron dome. >> no, i have not had conversations with him about this. he is in washington and i am in texas. john: your one last insult from the conservative red state. a conservative website. they save you are a moral cretin who blames america first. >> it sounds like they have a problem. [laughter] you know, i blame american policy. policymakers. you know, i blame george bush when he was president and obama for having a policy of aggression and now we accept the position that we can start wars

and we don't have to wait to be attacked. yes, i blame our american leaders for that. but i don't blame america. and i don't blame you and i don't blame myself. so americans per se, they say you blame america. but no, i blame a we have followed as a policy because we have not followed the constitution. i blame the americans that have no respect whatsoever for the constitution and they say that we should go nowhere without a declaration of war. so if that is blaming america, and we have this different definition, a completely definition different definition of what the constitution is. john: thank you ron paul. thank you for all the fighting of liberty that you did. >> you're welcome. john: i agree with almost everything that ron paul says about big government and the economy and maybe he's right about terrorism. but i'm not so sure. libertarians are split. we believe that government tries to do too much and when it does it usually fails or makes things worse. but defending america is a role

for government and its here in the constitution. who else is going to do it is not the state? individuals will hire private armies and many libertarians support arming isys and fighting them over there before they come here. but how exactly? most people i asked give responses like this. >> what should america do about isis? >> i don't know. i don't know what to do. >> i really don't know. john: let's turn to people that do have ideas. jd gordon is a former defense department spokesman and nab commander. he said that we need to attack isis on their turf. and he says that we need to be very careful about military action. why is that? >> your basic point about unintended consequences is nowhere more true than in iraq.

seem to support one side against the other, sunnis against shiites, attacking the islamic state. giving support to bashar al-assad. there's a lot of potential for unintended consequences. john: but these guys behead americans. we are weak if we don't respond. >> verilog bad things going on in the world. the united states taking action. and i think the introduction you gave on this show was perfect for that. john: what is your response? >> i think we have to have a tough military action against isis. i think they're tougher than al qaeda ever was. they have a vast swath of the serious and iraq and they are raking in about $3 million per day and we have the intent and capability, they say, to kill americans. and so we have to look at the real cause and that is radical islam. since 1979 when the islamic revolution occurred, their goal was to do that. the saudi's and sunnis.

they view the iranians as a prostate. and if it were never going to let them win. so they pump $100 billion in the stock. john: if we don't kill them all, we make new enemies. >> we attack the ones who are going to attack us and that is isis. but more importantly we have to discredit them in our homeland. we had to pressure the saudi's and the other countries to stop exploiting this. john: we are all in agreement on that. if the saudi clerics said these guys were not islamic, that would be a good start. president obama said it really doesn't work. but the clerics say at. john: what about this idea of arming the good rebel? >> i think it is the least bad option because we don't have u.s. troops in syria because they would be bombed by isis and

the iranians. john: how do we know who the good guys are reign. >> it's very difficult to tell. and we should support some sunni militants because they wanted to fight al qaeda and they are now part of isis. hillary clinton wants to support them as well. john: that is why this all goes back to topping radical islam. it's like trying to prune poison ivy. you have to pull up by the roots. so as long as this is being supported by saudi arabia officially or unofficially, that is why you have the taliban. all of these individuals were teaching boys this and that is why you have the taliban to begin with. and if you look at the 1970s. john: what do we do now? >> i think that the possibility of arming the rebels, if there ever was one, it has probably passed because the islamic state is so strong and you might have

a situation. john: possibly from the president speaking. >> if you dump a bunch of weapons on the so-called moderate syrian rebels right now, you end up with them capturing them. we have provided as to the iraqi army and make them even stronger. so i don't think it's an impossible option, but i think that it's going to be quite difficult. john: what you think? >> i think it's the least bad option. i'd rather have rebels are more pro-western and pro-american fighting isis and bashar al-assad and our troops on the ground. john: what about the ron paul option? >> the reason why don't think it's a great idea, if you care about israel, you can't pull out and israel can defend herself. because we give them $3 billion a year. if we pull out of the middle east.

john: it's not really just a gift. >> israel is number one and number two is oil. since her so much oil in the middle east, the global economy depends upon it. so until we kick the habit for middle eastern royal -- they are going to sell it. but throughout mankind's history whether you look at dictators or whatever, they will take whatever they can. john: oil is still available. >> they would take over the middle east. i remember when donald trump said we should just take the oil and that's basically what the regimes have done throughout history. so we don't want that to happen and that's why the u.s. has to be strong and why we have to be there to protect the free flow of oil with market-based prices are not some dictator taking over and because we care about israel. john: what is your last word. >> i don't think military force is always a bad idea. i don't think arming rebels is a bad idea. but the basic premise is is that

there will be unintended consequences and we have to brace for them is the guiding light and should be the guiding light for u.s. policies. john: thank you for joining us. if you want to join, use the hash tag terror and post on my facebook page. we want to know what you think about this. coming up next, how good is america and making the world safe for democracy? thank god we fought hitler and one. but since then we have fought many other wars as well. iraq, libya, how is that working out for us? and also does the tsa searches at airports make us safer? >> it becomes a huge personal >> it becomes a huge personal operation instead of a security when folks think about what they get from alaska, >> it becomes a huge personal operation instead of a security they think salmon and energy.

but the energy bp produces up here creates something else as well: jobs all over america. engineering and innovation jobs. advanced safety systems & technology. shipping and manufacturing. across the united states, bp supports more than a quarter million jobs. when we set up operation in one part of the country, people in other parts go to work. that's not a coincidence. it's one more part of our commitment to america.

♪ john: our government always tries to do too much. but national defense is a role for government in what americans are attacked by evil people and we are threatened, we want to do something. now the president, probably in response to polling numbers, says the we will go to war. but before we do something, we should remember that the government plans often go awry. i reported on politicians

promises to fix education, poverty, almost everything. and their programs always cost twice what they say they pay well. and the solutions create unintended consequences. and that includes trapping kids in bad schools. lish risk-taking and cost taxpayers billions. and governments attempts to punish bad guys often don't work out the way that we think that they will. >> the united states military has begun strikes against the al qaeda terrorist regime. >> after the attacks, president bush went to war in afghanistan, nearly all of us supported that.

and they hunted down those who had been allowed to operate in afghanistan. and then our troops stayed there and now they have in their 13 years, more than 2000 americans have been killed. it is a prospect for peace in afghanistan, but it does not look good. >> taliban fighters were on an all-out offensive in afghanistan seizing towns, taking over government centers and killing law enforcement workers. >> we thought we could do with the british failed to do. and what the russians failed to do. >> afghanistan is the war that some like to forget. it's part of the communist creed in america trained and bankrolled this for nine years that the war dragged on and they

wanted to occupy afghanistan and the afghan he decided for themselves what they wanted to do with their lives. but good intentions are not enough. in spite of our good intentions, enough of them saw us that things have gone badly over there. >> two years later we promised to rescue iraq from the dictators. again, we had good intentions and then we secured relative peace or several years. and it cost more than $2 trillion for the war. $17,000 for every american household. and this includes other minorities on the brink of a

possible genocide. but our failures don't end there. president obama tried to take out qadhafi. but are things better now? >> another setback for u.s. foreign policy this time in libya. john: we removed a monstrous dictator. but that left it more monstrous still. and now they have run us out of trouble. and there have been many other times and we failed in somalia. and the first gulf war didn't stop the second time. john: lasser when president

obama opposed them to punish their dictator, the public pushback. >> many of you have asked, will this put us on a slippery slope to another war? john: now we are about to fight that other war and it's a good thing that we didn't follow obama's original bombing plan because that terrible dictator is also now fighting isis. it's a good thing that obama backed out in the face of public opinion then. we never know what our interventions will bring. if we remove this come out we remove the biggest threats to places like hamas and we can't stop them all. and there may be actions we can take. we rescued thousands of places with food and water, and they stopped the advance. there is a difference between that and years of war that "the new york times" says we are going to rout the militants. the urge to do something is

understandable, but government can't get domestic policy right. so let's not assume it will be at foreign policy right. coming up next, oppose somatic stress and sexual assault in the military. >> is it a crisis in the military? john: what effect did it have on

john: i want my government to be as environmentally friendly as can be and i want women to be treated equally. she should have the chance to be treated that way. but the role of the military is different and we need them to keep us safe. dangerous work. but you might think that the greatest challenge is that the

military faces is environmentalism and sexual violence. >> it's a serious problem in the u.s. military is sexual assault. >> is that a crisis in the military? >> i think that it is. >> the pentagon has been under fire in recent years. and we are less able to fight now because the military has been obsessed with political correctness. and we are talking about these issues that is toxic right now. john: and 50% sounds bad. >> you know, it would be bad. and in fact there is a lot of sexual assault in the military.

and even one case of sexual assault is too many. but i think that something the left has been good at is politicizing this and shifting the focus to this issue. >> the increase could be because it was in the news john: senator barbara boxer made a point to say that. >> people forget that half of the victims are men. john: it is man on man.

>> the biggest challenge that they will face is this. .. john: why not? if they can do it. >> this is another issue that is difficult to talk about in the

military right now. important to talk about that man and women have been fighting alongside each other for years, i think decades at this point. you can see this in the aviation community. females are better at being fire pilots. so what is new and radical right now is the push -- well, in fact, it has been decreed by secretary panetta when he left. men and women will fight side-by-side in ground combat units. john: what is wrong with that? >> there are number of problems. the first is a physical disparity between men and women. now, there is an argument to be made. surely there will be some who can't meet the standards. the problem among the problems with that is what i am hearing from friends of mine who work in training programs for the marine corps and special operations communities is there is tremendous pressure coming from washington to look at their training standards and sort of the bureaucratic language of

washington evaluate whether certain training events and standards necessary. analysts come out, look at your training program. is that really necessary? what skill does that demonstrate the subtext is, in washington people concerned about making sure women graduate. the women themselves want to serve uneasiness don't want standards lowered. this is not driven by them. a top down and politicized issue john: and now the military has been given another politically correct goal, green energy. >> the air force flew and a tin thunderbolt entirely on alternative fuels, the first for the military. john: what is wrong with that? >> i have some experience in the department of the navy where we have a great scream fleet, roughly powered by renewable energy and algae and all this sort of stuff. i think that the problem, again, is a problem of focus. fossil fuel, nuclear power, established sources of energy,

cost-effective. this other stuff is more expensive, less available, less reliable. and there is no groundswell, no grass-roots desire for this stuff much the people who are actually -- john: hundred and $60 a gallon. sixty-four *. >> when i was about to deploy its afghanistan we had to go to a meeting to discuss the use of solar panels when we were deployed. and you know, it struck us that maybe this will work. it seems like a lot of effort for little gain. what happens when we get to a place with trees and rain and everything? john: thank you. thank you for speaking. coming up, terrorists are eager to blow up american airplanes. that is why at airports the tsa screens every person. my next guest says, abolish the tsa. [ male announcer ] ours was the first modern airliner, revolutionary by every standard. and that became our passion. to always build something better,

airplanes that fly cleaner and farther on less fuel. that redefine comfort and connect the world like never before. after all, you can't turn dreams into airplanes unless your passion for innovation is nonstop. ♪

♪ pier.

john: i were just a few miles from where the world trade towers were. thirteen years ago today i was scared and feared the next attack. my instinctive response in most people's lives to what government to do something, keep me safe. and the government did do something. the senate quickly voted 100-0 to create the tsa, the transadministration perry said majority leader said you cannot professionalize if you don't federalized. the government control appeals to people. so as airport security, not professional? >> for cowards. >> tsa employees older teeseven ordered the elderly woman to remove herself adult diaper. >> yes. >> anything that has the government stamp on it from my experience.

john: right. a rare wisdom from times square. chris edwards research the government boondoggles of the cato institute. kress, people seem to want the tsa to be there. they save as protected as, kept a safe. >> i think the main reason the last 13 years is because of the dearth of terrorist attempts against the aviation. we have only had two attempts, the issue bummer in 2001 and the underwear bomber in 2009. those were not stopped by the government but average americans tackling -- >> but they got on the plane. >> got on the planes passed government security and were tackled by individual passengers. that is what is keeping a safe. john: one specialist wrote that the passengers getting involved and cockpit doris. >> absolutely. i would give the government credit, the mandate of hardened cockpit doors. has been great to be one of the best things we have done for airport security.

the tsa itself has been mismanaged, boondoggle spending. it caused ingestion. as not been well run. john: to kaytoo is not saying get rid of airport security. you are saying privatize. here is a sample -- and your report. here is a sample of what happens when government allows an airport to privatize. the lines are shorter and san francisco airport. they move quickly, and passengers even say that screeners are nice. >> a little more understanding. >> a lot more friendly than dallas. john: dallas and the other big airports employ government screeners. san francisco is the one major airport that was allowed to hire screeners to work for a private company. they're better at finding stuff. the tsa has found that they were twice as good at finding contraband. why would a private screeners be nicer and better? here is a reason, they practice.

security cards together. the fastest screener relented thousand dollars. tsa trains its screeners, but they are like this. these guys have a profit margin. if he does a good job be will be hired by other airports and get richer and makes them more careful. >> that's right. in most european countries there a private screening at the airports with government oversight, and it works well. you get a contract. high-performance standard. you do a bad job and the government fires you. these companies to do this, they are exports. san francisco, the studies showed they did a better job than lax which has government screeners. john: other airports, let as privatizing the government won't let them collect such right. eighteen airports where they have allowed them. mostly small ones. study after study has shown that these privatized airports to

better than the government screening airports. the obama administration has tried to suppress this in stop the privatisation, but there is too much demand for airport. john: but the public, privatization, private sector always outperforms government. people are suspicious that tsa be privatized. most said no way. >> i think they do a good job. john: should it be privatized? >> i would not think so. john: people are scared. >> well, they should not be. they have done a bad job. mismanagement and scandal. hundreds of millions of dollars on things that don't work. his big body scanning machines that the installed, it showed that naked pictures of the passengers, it has come out now and academic studies have shown that those did not work and all.

guns and plastic explosives. john: account using them. >> wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of money. john: thank you. it will live in a reasonable world the government would now say the sentences go private screeners are approved. private competition is better. the disbanding the tsa and private contractors will compete for business. but we don't live in a reasonable world. we live in a big government world. government failed. our intelligence agencies ignored warnings a security screeners did everything government ask them to do perry box cutters that the hijackers used were allowed under faa rules. the government did not require strong plot -- carpet doors pivot largely a failure of big government, the politicians' response is always the same, give us more money and power, and we do. john:

musical chairs. fun, right? welllllllll, not when your travel rewards card makes it so hard to get a seat using your miles. that's their game. the flights you want are blacked out. or they ask for some ridiculous number of miles. honestly, it's time to switch to the venture card from capital one. with venture, use your miles on any airline, any flight, any time. no blackout dates.

and with every purchase, you'll earn unlimited double miles. from now on, no one's taking your seat away. what's in your wallet? from now on, no one's taking your seat away. when folks think about wthey think salmon and energy. but the energy bp produces up here creates something else as well: jobs all over america. engineering and innovation jobs. advanced safety systems & technology. shipping and manufacturing. across the united states, bp supports more than a quarter million jobs. when we set up operation in one part of the country, people in other parts go to work. that's not a coincidence. it's one more part of our commitment to america.

john: seen him. john: we look forward to a renewal of the patriot act in 2006. that law has done exactly what it has intended to do in this country cannot afford to be without its protections. john: the project was renewed.

the vote was not close. now in addition the nsa comes to our phone records, e-mails, knows what else. >> you cannot have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience the. john: and i suspect most americans agree with that, and that is appalling says judge andrew napolitano. why? because people do want to kill us. >> what makes america great is an atmosphere of limited government, the limitations guaranteed by the constitution. when those guarantees fall by the wayside and the government in the name of security rejects its limitations and believes it can regulate behavior, invade any rate, right in the law as long as the goal is security then there is no difference between the united states of america and some other empire that collapsed because it was

too powerful for its own good. john: too powerful for its own good suggests they are riding roughshod over everything. >> i agree with you that they do too much. john: this is a case where people not in uniform want to sneak in and murder arrest. >> a constitution that empowers the government to defend us from people not in uniform who want to sneak in here to murder arrest without destroying the liberties that come from our humanity and which the government has taken an oath, everyone who works for the government from the president down to a janitor in a public school has taken the same of to uphold the constitution, not to find ways around it are avoided but to follow it. john: your lawyers interpret the constitution a thousand different ways. >> yes, they do. wish you would not put me in that category, but yes they do. john: i don't feel my freedom impinge upon by this.

a thousand other ways. >> that is way it is so insidious, my dear friend because your freedom may have been in bins to pawn without your knowing it because in the old days when the government wanted, just by way of example, medical records, banking records , soldiers might have come into my house and ransacked john: correct. >> or as recently as 15 years ago you would have gotten a subpoena or a letter saying the fbi showed up. we have ten days to reply. you would have had an opportunity to know about it and challenge it. today the recipient of the subpoena, lawyer, banker, doctor , computer server, forbidden by law from telling you about it. john: they have my phone records, no like col. so does the phone records to the phone company. >> and the government knows everything about you. john: they don't know everything >> more than you think. when the government knows all

about you, even the things that you want to keep private the government can use that force its nefarious purposes and can use it for a witch hunt. every witchhunt will find a wedge. they will not stop until they find a which. john: where are the which is they are hunting? don't read about a gorgeous see people being arrested. >> oh, yes you do. they find the weakest among as an attempt them. you want to join a conspiracy? john: president obama was on your side permitted undermining our constitution. we elected barack obama who said he would stop such lawlessness. >> that means no more illegal wiretapping of american citizens, no more national-security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. our constitution works. >> as angry as i was at the bush administration, a never produced a legal memorandum from his

justice department planning that the president could kill americans. not only does this president spike, not only does this by with abandon, not only does he do it illegally and unconstitutionally committee claims the authority to kill americans and has done so. john: i assume most americans say, well, he did not get all the memos. now he sees the data. he is scared. he is not doing this for no reason. john: -- >> he took an oath to uphold the constitution. if the constitution is an impediment is delivery of the services he thinks he should deliver e should i leave the presidency or move to change the constitution. john: common sense is not in the constitution. >> it does not authorize them to violate other expressed guarantees. most of the time the defendants, the victims of a do not even know they're being victimized. and so they are not around to challenge. john: if you don't know how are you a victim? >> you are a victim when the government invade your privacy,

the government in basic dignity, the government violates your natural rights and does not tell you about it and does not give you a chance to challenge them. that is what of authoritarian governments have done, and every of authoritarian government, a half-dozen that are still around have collapsed for doing that including king george the third. john: very articulate. thank you, judge napolitano. coming up, might take on the conceit that government must do something.

would it be ok if i sat here? is she serious? ♪words, can't bring me down♪ ♪so don't you bring me down today♪

the. ♪ john: years ago the frederick hayek predicted correctly that socialism would fail. the federal -- they'll concede a politicians is to believe that man is able to shape the world around them according to his wishes. there is not much difference between the conceit that socialists can run an economy and the idea that our military can or should police the world. i am glad that our air strikes stop the advance of isis into northern iraq. i am glad that we airdropped food and water. i hope we find and kill the savages to be headed these americans. but now the president says we are going to determine whether good rebels in syria are and give them weapons? how do we know? americans speak arabic. our media cannot agree on who moderates are in congress.

we are going to degrade and destroy isis one-third of the way across the world? and skeptical that we can do what the president says we can do. the impulse to ask our military to destroy the bad guys often creates new bad guys, new people who want to kill us. and how much can our military do today some people want them to chase and kill terrorists, train foreign militaries to chase terrorist, protect sea lanes, police the border, contain china. the list goes on and on, and that is part of the problem. here is a list of things people ask the military to do. chase terrorist chemical terrorists. everyone has a bunch of things they want american soldiers to do. secure the internet? >> of course. that is part of defense. john: people were cheap. >> yes. john: up after natural disaster. >> definitely. it also seems cruel not to use

our military to try to create a better world to establish better regimes in libya, syria, so on. if government cannot run trains effectively in america or teach kids to read or ron poverty programs that work -- and they can't -- why would we think that government can create peace on other continents? democracy building fails were the same reason that economic central planning fails. top-down rarely works. europe tried but failed in africa. our government intervened in latin america, but we did not win hearts and minds. we got dictators like castro. central planners, whether they are kings, dictators, are democratically elected politicians trying to create something as complicated as a new social order they're likely to fail. if america is attacked or we are certain we are about to be a tax and we must defend ourselves and declare war. but short of that our goal

should be reenlisting -- realistic and modest. that is my take. we will be back this time next have a good weekend. you, too. . kennedy: "the sharing economy" what is it, a communist utopia where we have to give up things to those according to our needs to make more of our money or a way for you to live a luxurious and productive life on a budget. think uber and airbnb that allow people to rent out cars, homes and services to customers so everyone can get what they want while sidestepping business thwarting regulation. are the app and internet-based companies the wave of the future or a dreamy passing trend that will be squashed by nightmare bureaucrats? how to participate and more importantly how you, you can make money from it? this is "the independents."