it's gutfeld tonight. i'm kidding. >> greg: the o'reilly factor is on. tonight: >> you are being watched. the government has a secret system, a machine that spies on you every hour of every day. >> greg: no longer a science fiction fantasy, the u.s. government may be tracking your every call and key stroke. what is behind this unprecedented intrusion on your privacy? we'll have an investigation. >> what you have got is two programs that were originally authorized by congress had been repeatedly authorized by congress, bipartisan majorities have approved them. >> president obama defends administration spying measures. is he vindicated president bush?

>> they help us prevent terrorist attacks. we have a debate. >> miss world is venezuela. >> greg: shocking news from miss world organizers, no bikini competition this year in an effort to apiece muslims. we'll have a special report. >> i'm crushed. caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone. the factor begins right now. >> i'm greg gutfeld in tonight for bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us. the bombshell revelations about our government spying on us, that's the subject of this evening's talking points memo. so, if someone asked you do you wish 9/11 never happened, you obviously would say yes. if you were then to ask do you wish there had been a system to catch those terrorists before they attacked, yes, to that, too. which is why the nsa data scoop is a tricky thing if

that program had existed 12 years ago 9/11 might have been stopped. that's the problem with proving a negative. if you prevent a terror attack, how do people know the benefit of that? it hurtle my brain just thinking about it. but the white house claims this mass grab of phone records did stop one attack, which makes you wonder if a security program like this wasn't present and that attack hit, would we now clamor for one? so the question really is do you forfeit the ability to find a needle in a hay stack if you live in that hay stack? sadly whatever this snooping amounts to, it didn't stop the boston bombing or fort hood. the strangest case of work place violence ever. sorry if fort hood is work place violence then the hindenburg was an air show. fort hood did happen not because of lack of intel but lack of will we were scared to call terror what terror is for fear of appearing bigoted and that opened the door to the

devil. it's not about surveillance really but an administration who cannot use it properly. sorry i just can't trust a progressive government given their nature to defend america's critics rather than our own values. if america were a car, the left would root for rust. and we can't feel too safe when one arm of the government, the irs is already targeting decent americans. seriously, we have had the doj, the irs, and now the nasa. any more scandals and we need to move on to the greek alphabet. and that's the memo. now for the top story. the government secret surveillance program is bigger than first report reported as the "the washington post" revealed. it's not just verizon phone customers whose data is being mined, big brother is spying on the internet as well. joining us from d.c. "the washington post" investigator robert o'hareo author of the book no place to hide. assume i'm an idiot which most people do including members of my family. lay it out for us.

who is doing what and where? >> the program is called prism and it's a great code name. it's vivid. it involves something that why have known has been going on for years now which is a partnership between the government and private sector data collectors. in this case we are talking about microsoft, america online, apple and others. essentially, it amounts to the nasa having what appears to be direct ago access to those servers in an effort to find four nationals involved in nefarious activities. >> basically the goal is, you know, terrorists calling someone in america or visa versa and being able to flag that. you can't -- can do you that any other way without this sort of mass data collection? >> well, there is a lot of different ways you can do data collection. they are saying that this isn't mass data collection but, of course, there is no way to know. and that's probably the key problem here.

and by the way, i don't see this in any way as a republican or democratic type issue. there are people that are trying to protect the country and they are operating behind a cloak of secrecy. and i think that many americans would say we don't allow unchecked power in this country. >> in plain english, again, are they reading our emails? >> yes. apparently they are not just reading emails. they are collecting videos. they are looking at memos, documents, and if youics and this more closely they are collecting data about telephone calls. my suspicion is that what we're looking is the proverbial tip of the iceberg and that the data collection is far broader, massive, much more intensive than what we are seeing here. in this program, what we know for sure from in any case what we have heard from the president and from

intelligence officials is that they are going into these systems, and they are collecting information. and it is helping them on apparently hundreds of cases. they say that it's narrow and focused on foreign nationals. we're going to have to see. it seems likely that some of this data collection involving american citizens. >> greg: what do you know about this terror attack that was thwarted? was it a subway targeting a subway in new york? do you have any information on that. >> i don't have any information on it typically it's hard to extrapolate information about successful counter terrorism, counter intelligence efforts because officials are intelligence community is exceedingly worried about its sources and methods. i'm not sure even when we do hear about these cases where instances were towarded we're going to be hearing the full story but the answer is no, i don't

know about that case. >> greg: i think people first hear about this story they are shocked at the sweep of it. there is millions and millions and millions of data. what do you compare that too? what is the other option? do you just make people feel better by only looking at some data and not all of it? >> well my view on this having worked on my book for more than a year and having this, it's very simple. data and technology is very powerful tool for protecting national security. it would be hard to argue that we -- i think would expect our leaders to use these tools if they weren't using them. i think that the problem here is that it's happening so often behind a cloak of secrecy that we don't really know how they are using it and in my investigation of simpler data tools by law enforcement over and over again shows that if given a chance they will abuse

them. >> greg: one quick last question, why was this brought to the attention by the guardian and not by a u.s. paper? >> well, the "the washington post" actually broke the story first 20 minutes or so ahead of the guardian. it appears that there were leaks to two different sets of reporters. >> okay. thank you, robert. next on the rundown, president obama defends the spy measures. is he vindicating former president george w. bush. we have a debate. later the "new york times" blast president obama in a scathing critiques and

>> greg: continuing now with lead story president obama defended the data gathering today. >> i think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and

zero inconvenience. we're going to have to make some choices as a society. >> greg: joining us now to react is civil rights attorney jennifer and from washington brad blakeman senior advisor to george w. bush. data mining has got you down. should president obama be impeached? >> no. he should not be impeached but, nice try. i do not agree with him on this. i believe the pandora's box was opened long, long ago when the patriot act passed under the bush administration and the problem is that we are still stuck back there it's actually gotten worse more transparency and accountability. we haven't seen that at all. weave have seen maybe even going down a more difficult path and we know less. we don't even know what's going on. that's the biggest problem. no public debate.

what is the government doing? >> that's the great thing about being a progressive liberal is that you can adopt the practices of the right and people are oka with it because the media agrees with you almost on everything. so they are willing to give you a pass on this. brad, is he vinny del negro calgt former president george w. bush? >> he certainly is look, in 2007 as a candidate, president obama then senator obama on the intel committee was against patriot act, fiz is a, and then he got sworn in as president guess what he had epiphany he was given presidential daily brief that probably made the hair stand up on the back of his neck and understand the threats america faces and president obama did the right thing by establishing fisa act and gave our law enforcement the kind of tools necessary and the proof is in the pudding, greg, we haven't been attacked since 2001. the reason why is because of the tools that the intelligence community has. do we have to surrender part of our rights to do that? yeah, we do it every day at

t.s.a. we take off our shoes, get padded down, our luggage gets looked at. if you don't have anything to hide. americans are not being hurt by this, they are being helped. my friend, you would be the first one and as a civil rights attorney to be arguing if there was a massive attack on america why didn't we connect the dots? why is it possible that this attack happened? >> i don't know that i would be making that. >> you certainly. >> we my argument is this. that even the author of the patriot act has said we have gone too far this is not what was contemplated. what was contemplated under the patriot act when there is an ongoing investigation of a suspected terrorist that we're allowed to use any number of tools, including even hearing content of conversation. this is different this is dragnet. >> you have to get a warrant to do that. we are not listening in on people's telephone calls. >> no one is suggested that. but you can. the government has the authority to do that when there is, in fact, when there is in fact an investigation. dragnet.

>> there is harm on america you go to the fisa court and present your case and get a warrant and the investigation goes further. >> no one is really quarreling with that what we are quarreling with as americans all of our conversations and metadata soshtsed with them, not the content of them. >> not conversations,. >> the metadata, who we are calling is like having an fbi agent standing outside your door and following you everywhere. >> is that really the case? they gather this information when which they don't look at until they find a clue. and then they focus, they drill down, i hate that phrase on to what they find and then that's when they start looking at things. but they pretty much don't look at anything. that's what i -- this is what i am gathering. >> you can get a lot of information about someone's life through metadata, who they are calling where they are when they are how many times they call that earn '. yes, it can be annualized and that's what they are saying they are doing. this is the problem. we do have a privacy

interest in that information. the patriot act does not necessarily authorize that it's a very expansive view of the language of the scope. >> greg, there is no evidence that the government abused their authority. >> we don't know whether the government abused their authority because they are not telling its anything. >> the nonsense that the american people didn't know is nonsense. the president was elected by the people. the house and the senate were elected by the people. the people know through their elected representatives that's how our government works. >> americans want to know details. what is the nature of the program. >> sometimes americans are not entitled to the details because if they have the details the enemy has the details. >> i want to know what the nature of what the program is. what we expect. you may not have a right to he. no those in the authority checks and balances in the court. >> there is no checks and balances who is looking at it. >> three branches of government that agreed to, this basically. >> that's what they say. >> that's what they say? >> yeah, we don't know.

how it's being inat the prettied and how the patriot act and the language of the patriot act is being interpreted. >> that's what the courts are for. supreme court ruled these are the proper tools. government goes too far there is a remedy for that don't act like the american people are somehow being picked on by government because data is being lined to connect the dots to the could do us harm. >> facebook are denying in this all together. they are denying it. >> i have got to go. i love this conversation because you have got a conservative siding with he obama and liberal siding with the conservative libertarian. i think the stashed law enforcement terrorist get better at their trade. it's got to change. >> absolutely. >> you have to have individualized -- you can't have dragnet. >> greg: that's a tough one. up next the liberal "new york times" attacks president obama. then a short time later dials back its criticism. what's that all about? geraldo on the case moments

>> greg: in the fridays with geraldo segment' tonight. americans were surprised to read yesterday that the "new york times" editorial board oftentimes president obama's best friend wrote quote the administration has now lost all credibility. but when you lose that paper you know times are tough. however, hours later the "times" softened its stance and changed the line to the administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. steve, specifically about the nasa spying controversy. so why did the times change its tune? joining us now from s. fox news anchor geraldo rivera. geraldo, my theory is valerie jarrett emerged from secret underwater layer and paid the the times a visit. >> it could be. you know, greg, the way these conspiracies operate it could very well be my first thought was the "times" was angry at

president obama because the story was leaked to the "the washington post." that's why they got their nose in a twist there the "new york times" is constantly being surprised that barack obama is not really a liberal. may have campaigned as a liberal and may have been a liberal as united states senator state senator or community organizer. is he really kind of a middle of the road guy look, he has waged this relentless drone war. he has he opposed it or did not push for single pair in the obama administration. now you can see he has sanctioned this widespread snooping under the patriot act. fully embraced the bush. i think that's who he is i don't think he is a liberal. he wants to close guantanamo and try terrorists in civilian courts absent that. >> greg: he just introduced a whole new program into government. healthcare. i mean, he just -- you know, that's a pretty big deal. if he just does that and

leaves is he a successful progressive, i think. >> he did not do single pair though. he was in league with the insurance company that's why i oppose it. >> either way it's going to be a disaster. >> enough about obama care. what do you want to know about snooping? >> greg: here is the thing with the "new york times." is this basically just a love spat between them and the president obama? it seems like the "times" like a neglected mistress in all of this. >> it is fascinating to me james laughed at the mistress reference. it's fascinating to me that there was this change, this moderation in tone. the "new york times" obviously had a twit fit then they thought better of it or maybe somebody got to them or maybe someone in the higher up understood that the editorial board had run amuck here. i don't know -- i think that this will settle out. it's, you know, they are -- the enemy of my enemy is my friend all that stuff. >> do you think obama lost all credibility with the left. >> oh, no. i don't think that at all.

likes a opposed to what? >> yeah, what do they have? hompleghts are you going to embrace? john boehner? i mean, it's i think president obama will be the democrat darling of the liberal. this is a particularly, you know, conflicted situation because you have republicans and democrats on both sides of the issue. republicans and licialtsz on both sides of the issue. dianne feinstein defending this snooping to me the biggest story, a lot of people have buried the lead here. isn't either the prism program where they are snooping on the internet or the massive verizon subpoena. it is that in the midst of eric holder being embattled for trying to close leaks, trying to close the leak against the associated press exposed, trying to, you know, get james rosen and fox news enclose that leak exposed. get what, even as is he

vigorously trying to close the holes, guess what someone in the nasa massively leaks far bigger of the stories than either of the stories that were is the subject of the intensive department of justice investigations that led to the a.p. scandal that james rosen fox news scandal. here somebody has dumped two very, very important super secret programs right up. who did they give it to? that crazy blowingy guy on the guardian. >> glenn. >> so he got it. so it had to be. the crowd, of the bradley manning, wikileaks, hard left crowd. and the other story went to the "the washington post," of course also the mainstream media has missed so many stories. the irs story broke because of an errant email, you know? >> the irs story is far more upsetting to me, why? because here you have people that are charged with, you know, impartially enforcing the tax collection process in the country. and they are being used as a partisan tool. they have taken data, in other words, and they have

perverted that data for an act that could arguably be criminal. that's what troubling me about this massive surveillance program. raking in all this data. what if there is somebody as aberrant as those irs guys that gets ahold of that data now you have got an nsa using it catching some guy watching the porn channel or cheating on his wife. >> no need to bring up my practices. >> that's the key. the thing is we wouldn't worry too much except we have seen the context with the irs that they do these things. are you worried that the government is listening to these phone calls? and what would they find out, geraldo. >> i have been faithful to my wife for 13 years. >> 13 out of how many. >> 13 out of 13. the book is old. >> if they actually tapped my lines, they would be so bored. >> hi, daddy, how are you doing. hi, honey, sing me a song. >> exactly. that's kind of depressing about my life. all right, geraldo, thank you for coming. pley more ahead as the factor moves along this

evening. the irs scandal continues to get worse for the white house. we will have the latest. and then the most being showing story of the day. geraldo control yourself. no bikini's competition at this world's pageant out of muslim sensibilities. i just bought my two piece. we hope you stay tuned to those reports. i know you will. alec, for this mission i upgraded your smart phone. ♪ right. but the most important feature of all is... the capital one purchase eraser. i can redeem the double miles i earned with my venture card to erase recent travel purchases. d with a few clicks, this mission never happened. uh, what's this button do? [ electricity zaps ] ♪ you requested backup? yes. yes i did. what's in your wallet?

>> gregg: in the factor follow-up segment tonight, more trouble brewing at the

irs. there are reports today that washington officials at the beleaguered tax collection agency knew that conservatives were being unfairly targeted back in 2010. a year earlier than prpreviously thought. joining us now to react from washington is maddy director of budget and regulatory policy for americans at tax reform a conservative group. made, so the irs keeps growing like a scandal chia pet. what's your take on this latest development? >> right, greg. well, you know, the more we learn the less surprise weed are unfortunately. as you mentioned we are now hearing that irs officials in washington knew maybe a year earlier than they have been willing to let on before. this, of course, was all parked by an employee in the cincinnati office that is at the center of the controversy sipping email mistakenly to more people than she should have. irs is not immune to the problem someone that doesn't know the difference between reply, reply all. these are the folks in charge of administration the tax code. that's worrisome i think

for taxpayers the amount of human error involved in this is stunning beevment have all sent out email accidently to a group my vacation pictures from 2006. embarrassing i had to leave town. >> yeah. >> i'm sure you caught the hearings yesterday with fer business spinach who played the great spock on star trek. questioned and he was embarrassed those were his words. what did you make of his performance there. >> again. this gets back to the questions i think all taxpayers are asking what kind of incompetency is going on at the snirs, right? you got the fall guy up in front of the panel yesterday, trying to explain his way out of a report that showed that the agency has wasted unless and millions on conferences, lavish gifts on employees. he even said, you know, i'm not quite even sure that that's the exact number. we're not even sharier how much money we are spending on all of our star trek

videos and what have you because we can't even coop track of that if they can't keep track of their own budget. how are we supposed to be sure they are keeping track of our taxes when we send them to washington. this story gets worse and worse as we move along. >> the great thing is the fact that they don't have the receipt kind of gives the rest of america an out so we can say hey we don't have our receipts. you show us your receipts i will show you mine. here is the thing my real issue with the irs is a lot of this is comical. we can make jokes at star direct and idiocy. do these revelations mean anything if nothing is actually done? i mean if we actually target the irs this the way the irs targeted americans? >> right, right. well, you know, this get back to our original point about how sparked by employee who just fired off the wrong email. now, if we can chalk this all up to one person, a it up couple people's mistakes. maybe we can move past it.

i think there is a bigger picture here. americans deserve to know whether or not this is part of a sem systemic plan by the irs to target individuals based on how they think. we need to know this was an isolated incident. so far every person dragged in front of a congressional panel has been unable to answer that question. so taxpayers the want to know and americans deserve to know how did this happen in the first place and whether or not it can happen again. >> in my mind it's about firing people or low level people it's about firing institution. recent poll found that 68% was political ind the irs nature. seems to meek like an opening for a candidate toch target the irs itself in an gection and say listen it's time would talk about fair tax and closing the irs down. i think maybe that sounded cookie four years ago or 8 years ago. now it sounds like a perfect opportunity when it makes sense is that you can actually do away with this.

>> again, you see at lo of democrats kind of trying to distract this way. trying to say this all has to do with groups who are saying too much politically and filing under the wrong political status. for one, the irs went above and beyond targeting groups. it went after individuals. looking at actual individuals and really going after them and trying to audit them. on the second hand, that's not the point, if you are concerned about the tax code and the groups in the tax code that's a conversation about comprehensive tax reform. unfortunately live democrats don't want to have that conversation and they certainly don't want to have the conversation about the problemsy the irs. continues to poke holes in the idea that big government is good for the american people and good for a prosperous nation. >> greg: lastly, if each person makes themselves a political target of a political machine the political machine does not have the power to target it. it's virtual impossible. >>s about up next. shocking announcement, there will be no bikini

competition this year. i respect to recover from this horrible news after the break but i don't know. at which time we will debate the situation. stay with us. @í0x;ñt

>> greg: thanks for staying with us, i'm greg gutfeld in for bill o'reilly. in the impact segment tonight, it's a time-honored tradition contestants in the miss

world pageant participate in a bikini competition. i wouldn't know. this year's event is being held in indonesia home of the most populist muslim religion. that religion no fans of bikinis. they will instead wear one piece swim wear. causing outladies and gentlemen among red blooded mayles around the globe. president of the america together foundation. so, mike, so the bikini is going to be removed and replaced to preserve feelings of muslims. do you feel that's a good thing or bad thing? >> well, gregg, i have stood up for every race, ethnicity, religion and people of culture. i'm going to stand up with the muslims at this time for their sensitivity. we have a right to defend what they believe in we should be proud of them that they are protesting it. that's a sign of a good healthy democracy. we should look at it in positive terms, greg. >> greg: debt i have a

right to wear a bikini? >> you do. there is a business decision, greg. 2 billion people watching the pageant. it is in the interest of the pageant makers ever the organization to have that viewership so they can get the advisors. we didn't have to go to indonesia. we went to i understand do nearby sexual harassment let me give an example. if you have a restaurant. you want to open the restaurant in a predominantly jewish or muslim neighborhood you want to sell kosher made. why would you want to do a stupid thing like that in a jewish neighborhood you open a restaurant that kosher food. in this case doing the show, predominantly muslim neighborhood to needs,. >> it's a fair point i want to make. i don't actually wear bikinis. i don't like them. i find bellybuttons troubling.

it's like unblinking eye. here is the thing that bothers me about this. i have more it's about capitulation that sensitivity. we saw lady gaga had to cancel a concert in indonesia out of fear are something the torched. it's not tolerance but intolerance of muslims who get angry and threaten violence if there were bikini notice miss world pageant would there be violence? >> it happened -- just not muslims, greg, hindus and christians have done it too in india in 19976. there were 10,000 paratroopers when did the christians riot? i missed the christians when did they riot over bikinis? >> not the bikinis when he they did the passion of the christ in india. they got together and. it's not a muslim thing. it is a human thing to

protest against and that is a very democratic thing to do. we should appreciate that. >> bill: it's a democratic thing to riot and burn. >> it's not democratic. to protest is the democratic thing right thing to do. we should admire them for doing that every nation, if you don't protest, republicans don't protest, obama would get his way. if you didn't are what's happening in washington, occupy the. those are things protest something they don't like. we wouldn't walk anybody work in that restaurant no shoes no shirt. what's the difference? it is not freedom. it's the system we have to respect. when you are in rome do as the romans do. it's a very simple thing. very critical thing dale carnegie had said if you want to gather honey don't kick the belive. if you want to cut that tooth from the $3 billion

we don't kick behives off odd most people wrapping are radical muslims. we are not wedge with they there was a beheading in england a few weeks ago. that's what scares us. companies not about peaceful esm out threatened. we are threatening violence because of a bikini. that kind of disturbs me, and, like i said i'm in favor of the one piece. thank you for coming. coming up ravel peters on the isa. you might be surprised

>> greg: in the factor original segment tonights as we reported there are a number of people who consider the selling of hard drugs to be a nonviolent crime and do not want prison time for offenders. bill recently spoke with dennis whose 27-year-old son jeff dried of drug overdose in 2000 will. and, -- 2008. son ian died in 1996. ms. cats is the author of the book "sony's story, how to save a young life. >> so ms. cass, you agree with me this is a violent crime to sell heroin to another human being, correct? >> absolutely. >> when you hear people and ms. collin is going to disagree say look, we shouldn't be concentrating on the pushers and the deeferls. because it takes two to make the sale and all of that and you say? >> i say loosening the drug laws would create more drug use. and that means more crime. more overdoses.

more kids dropping out of school. it wreaks havoc an our country. >> what about giving that harsh mandatory 10 to 20. they are putting a lot of these guys away for a long period of time. does the crime fit the punishment? >> i believe it does. i believe it does. i have a support group of families who have lost children i get calls from moms. you i can't believe the cries. i have never heard sounds like this. >> are they angry with the pushers? >> the first thing they want do is get their hands on the drug dealer. >> i thought that was prevailing wisdom but you disagree with me and ms. cats and there are others who feel the way that you do that you shouldn't put these drug pushers in jail. and why do you feel that way? >> i adamantly disagree with you, bill, i think our drug sentences are harsh enough draconian enough. we incarcerate so many people in our country and most of them for minor possession charges. >> bill: that's not true

ms. cullen, very few at the federal level are incarcerated for minor offenses and ones that are in the state and local prisons get out very few. you know they have a long wrap sheet. these dealers go in five, six, 8 times. you have to have have to have e charged as a trafficker to go away on the mandatories. your son was killed from a mix of xanax and morphine, very, very tough drugs. you don't blame person who gave him the drugs or sold him the drugs? you don't think that person has any culpability at all? >> no. i don't blame him for allowing ñr him for leaving my son alone in the condition he was in. >> they're selling poison y. don't you blame them? >> because my son, as much as there's a choice, when yout(ç addictive illness as severely as he did, he called the drug dealer -- >> bill: okay. your son is responsible for his actions as well, in my opinion.

your son paid the price. he's dead. you're giving the guy who, made the drug son accessible not only to your son but other people as well a total pass. why would you do that? >> mr. o'reilly, we've been doing this for 40 years. we've been doing this for 40 years. it doesn't work. >> bill: it works. the tough mandatories, dropped cocaine use 71%. 71%. >> i think your numbers areç skewed. >> no. these are numbers that come froz the white house. go ahead. >> what i would like to focusç on,ápxym mr. o'reilly,ç is pren now, and decent education in the beginning. we have a bill in the assemble rightk5ñ fov introduced by assey member blum. our overdose rate in california is higher than car accident fatalities. we have nothing in place. >> bill: i agree that prevention, just sávzv no, what nancy reagan did is necessary, but i think you have to punish the poison dealer.

>> no. >> bill: she isn't blaming the pusher. >> denise, i'm sorry about your loss, but if you think about it, maybe our children will still be alive today if that drug dealer didn't giveç the drug to our children. yes, it was my son's ian's choice to use drugs, but i wanted to get him off the streets, because i didn't want to see this happen to another family. we can't be a nation of enablers. it perpetuates the disease of addiction. >> bill: it's interesting there's such a sharp disagreement among good people. i have to tell you, ms. cullen, i know people killed by drugs, i know drug dealers, and the drug dealers are evil, in my opinion. >> mr. o'reilly, that's not where we should focus our attention. we should focus onç savings our kids now on better quality education, tell the truth, don't scare kids. they don't respond to that. we know that. it's been going on for 40 years.

>> bill: go ahead. >> i think we have to do both. we have to do prevention. education is key, and so is talking -- the parent talking to the children. >> bill: absolutely. >> we cannot enable this situation. >> bill: ladies, thank you very much. we really appreciate it. >> we'll weigh in on the spying controversy and president obama's decision to name susan

>> it's been a busy week for president obama, not only facing backlash over the irs scandal, the doj spying on reporters, and now the nsa controversy. he also decided to name susan rice national security advisor even though she blamed the benghazi attack on a video. >> i'm pleased to announce susan

rice 3as our new national security advisor. >> ralph peters joins us, author of the new book "hell or rich men." i have to ask you a question, how do you< you're pretty much okay with what's going on in the nsa surveillanceç stuff, iç think. how do you explain this to your conservative or libertarian friends who want to disown you? >> well, i have been there. i think fox viewers know i love this country and value its freedoms. this is a nonscandal. it deflects from the real scandal the obama administration is facing. the intel community can't get a break. if they do anything to protect a terrorist attack, it's, ooh, big brother is watching. if they slack off, there's a terrorist attack, then it'sóx7mn intelligence failure. i worked in that world. the people at nsa are often underpaid for their skills. they're wonk patriots. they do a good job.

they're not out to take over the government. they're not looking over the shoulder of 40-year-old losers trolling porn sites. what this program prism ds, at the simplest level, is it collects vast amounts of data untouched by human hands, super computers sort it looking for ar kayian metadata links. it's focused on terrorists, not you and me.ç nsa is just doing its job, doing it well. by the way, keith alexander, general alexander, who has put this together over the years, he's probably the most h÷ servant in thisé7frxd country. i've had it with people blaming intel for everything. >> ralph, if this program did not exist, what we be less safe? >> of course we would. our terrorist items, the high-end guys, have tremendous

technological skills. they are not stupid. they're wielding our tools against us. we need to turn the tables back on them. again, as far as nsa goes, you know, hollywood creates this image of, ooh, the nsa is coming with black helicopters. nsa is a collection of wonks. not only couldn't take over the government, they couldn't take over a dunkin' donuts, but they do great brain work. >> i find it amusing to see a lotl]éwrr of liberals coming oun favor of this stuff wouldlz?euz had pitchforks in the street if this was bush. >> oh, sure. president obama can do no wrong. give obama credit for one thing. today when he answered that question u vf:ég to the san jos, it may have been the first time i ever heard him be 100%ndo hont when he described the nsa program. >> yeah. >> he was truthful on that one. >> real quick, i want to ask you

about the susan rice appointment. ÷ t? was that just for fun? >> no. it's bad for the country, great for the administration. everybody is focused on what good buddies, they and that's a factor, but the key thing with making susan rice national security advisor is it puts her beyond the reach of congress. she's now part of the executive branch because of separation of powers. it's virtually impossible for congress to subpoena her, put her under oath, and ask about benghazi. such that obama does, it's a brilliant political move and terrible for our country and our national strategy. >> got about 10 seconds left. seems to me like it's a payoff e. pushed the video, she took the blame. >> she took the fall, period. >> thanks for watching tonight, everybody. i'm greg gutfeld in for bill o'reilly. please remember the spin stops

here because we're looking out for you. >> sean: welcome to the special studio audience edition of "hannity." s groupwe're joined by a of great americans, mostarge unfairly targeted by the irs a because of their associationve with fairs conservativeu organizations. coming up, you'll hearill their stories about what they've donem through, also hear from the attorneys representing their respective groups. first one of the most fas fascinating things to watch ove the past few weeks is the ever-changing time n.l. of whoat knew about the irs scandal. at first, nobody seemed to know anything about it. as the day goes by, that seems to be evolving quite a bit. watch this. >> can you give us assurances that the irs is not targeting particularar gro groups based ou