but it's open for everyone. there's not one way to do something. no details too small. american express open forum. this is what membership is. this is what membership does. thank you for being with us. happy friday. we have a big show tonight. one of which involves a bit of monty python. here we go. if you had the power of time travel and you could go anywhere and be anyone at any time in history, i would recommend against you deciding to be a woman in salem, massachusetts in roughly 1692 because from 1692 to 1693 in salem, massachusetts, salem, massachusetts went completely nuts. that community went into a panic over the fear of witchcraft. they put more than 200 people on trial, the salem witch trials,

for being witches. a significant proportion of people they put on trial ended up getting drowned or burned at the stake or hanged, et cetera. no, i was not there, neither were you, but it is fair to assert that salem, massachusetts did not actually have infestation of witches. what salem, massachusetts had was a really unfortunate panic about a civic hysteria, and to remind us of that, we as americans have this really commonly used phrase, in modern american english, the phrase witch hunt. we all know if there's a witch hunt under way, it is not like saying rabbit hunt or bear hunt or manhunt, it doesn't apply there's a witch out there, that's the person for whom you are legitimately hunting. the idea of a witch hunt is that there isn't a witch. there's a self-serving exercise maybe using the specter of a witch, but that's just used to excuse your own self serving hysteria. that's what witch hunt means.

everybody knows that. this is not an obscure thing, not about witches, paranoid self serving group hysteria. we are clear on this. this is not an obscure idiom. this is an everyday household word thing. we all get what witch hunt means, right? right. >> then they would try and explain themself in such a way that they would blame our insistence upon getting the truth as a political witch hunt. mr. speaker, that must mean there's a witch somewhere. >> nope. exactly the opposite of that. nope. congressman pete sessions of texas, that's not what witch hunt means. if somebody says, wish hunt, that doesn't mean there's a witch. doesn't anybody let republican members of congress at least watch monty python? >> we found a witch. may we burn her?

>> how do you know she's a witch? >> she looks like one. >> bring her forward. >> i am not a witch. i am not a witch. >> but you're dressed as one. >> they dressed me up like this. and this isn't my nose, it is a false one. >> well, what would you do with the nose, and the hat. >> but she's a witch. >> did you dress her up? >> no. >> yes, yes. a bit. she has got a wart. >> what makes you think she's a witch? >> well, she turned me into a newt. >> a newt? >> i got better. >> i got better. the whole point, the whole idea of the witch hunt is that she is

not really a witch, right? they weren't really witches. witch hunts aren't about that. congress pete sessions of texas understands it differently apparently. >> they would blame our insistence upon getting the truth as a political witch hunt. mr. speaker, that must mean there's a witch somewhere. >> congressman pete sessions of texas is talking about there a whole new interpretation of what the phrase witch hunt means. it is the special select committee the republicans in the house formed to do yet another investigation into the attacks in libya in 2012, which killed four americans, including the u.s. ambassador to that country. democrats have characterized republicans' efforts to turn that tragedy into political scandal, they characterized that as a witch hunt. if congressman sessions remarks are any indication of the broader feeling about that, they may apparently not think a witch hunt is a bad idea.

must mean there's witches. i do have to say though right before he said that, before he said if there's a witch hunt that must mean there's a witch, congressman pete sessions said something else on the same point which bears scrutiny. you at least need to hear it, if only because maybe you know what it means. after working really hard on this today, i am still at a loss to what he is talking about. watch. >> hiding the ball is one thing, deception is another. and this administration has gone out of their way. they've lawyered up to make sure that they could i think mislead congress. where they would make sure we couldn't ever get involved in anything but a goo ball, then they would try and explain themselves in such a way. >> wait, hold on. we couldn't ever get involved in anything but a what? >> we really couldn't ever get involved in anything but a goo ball. >> goo ball.

what is congressman pete sessions of texas talking about with the gooball reference? urban dictionary says it has something to do with pot, i am quite sure that's not what he meant. we checked with a texas source to see if goo ball is a texas thing, maybe has to do with something in texas and comes up regularly in texan conversation that we're not used to in washington. no, not as far as we can tell. we contacted pete sessions' office and asked if they know what he means and if they would share it with us, again, the phrase? >> we really couldn't ever get involved in anything but a goo ball. >> congressman sessions' office said the congressman was traveling so they couldn't ask him directly, they said they have not heard him use the word goo ball before. they say it is not a part of his vocabulary. they said what he meant when he said goo ball was maybe a mess.

>> anything but a goo ball. >> in the middle of this discourse about a special select committee in the house, there is a really interesting question, a really interesting strategic question on the democratic side, and the democrats are having a hard time figuring it out. republicans have formed this committee, democrats think it is nonsense what they're doing and the way they're trying to do it. should democrats ignore the whole goo ball, ignore it all, boycott participating, or should the democrats take part so there's a chance of hearings from the committee being other than what kevin drum called a made for fox news channel extravaganza. interestingly, there's a pretty direct precedent for this hard decision in the not too recent past. september 15, 2005, that was 17 days after hurricane katrina hit new orleans. president george w. bush did his famous no tie, no suit jacket, long walk to the podium, i take responsibility, apologetic

address to the nation how the government had failed in response to hurricane katrina, leading to over 1800 american deaths. at that time, in 2005, both the u.s. senate and house were under the control of the republican party, and on the day that president bush gave that address in new orleans in washington, republicans in the house voted to create a special select committee to investigate preparation for and response to hurricane katrina. the republicans would not only chair the committee, they would have the most seats on the committee, control the subpoena power for the committee, they would handle questioning of witnesses and overall report of the committee. by the way, that's exactly what the republicans are offering now in the benghazi select committee. but in 2005 when faced with that prospect as the official government investigation into what went wrong with the government response to hurricane katrina, democrats seeing that's what republicans wanted to do said no way, we are not

participating in that. they said it should be a nonpartisan investigation, independent of the government, modeled on the independent 9/11 commission which had such a big impact. they said it should be taken out of the hands of the republican congress. when the republicans in congress said no, the democrats walked. watch nancy pelosi in this clip explaining the democrats' position at the time. watch what she says about democrats voting their conscience on the issue and what she says their conscience will tell them to do. >> and what are your expectations for other democrats, are you encouraging them one way or the other on this vote or let them vote their conscience? >> they always vote their conscience, but they have to know what the facts are in the legislation. so i never ask anybody not to vote their conscience. and their conscience i think will tell them that the legislation the republicans are putting forth is a sham. they call it bipartisan. the speaker appoints all of the members. it is not evenly divided, it is

unclear what subpoena power would be. i would ask my colleagues not to support such a sham, and i believe when they know the facts they will know that this is not how to serve the interest of the people of the region. this is not a way to find the truth. it is a way to give cover for the failure of the administration and immediate response to katrina. >> they always vote their conscience. their conscience i think will tell them that this is a sham. that's how nancy pelosi kept a reign on her democrats. this is 2005 and they polled out, republicans went ahead. and everybody knew the democrats weren't participating and it was republican only thing. and they went ahead. when that republican only report came out, had precisely two sentences in the whole report about how president george w. bush did. this was the verdict. there total, quote, it does not appear the president received

adequate advice and counsel from disaster officials. earlier presidential involvement might have resulted in a more effective response. other than that, he did a heck of a job. that's all they said about him. so that is sort of the immediate precedent for the democrats' own decision whether or not to participate in what they also believe is another sham partisan republican inquiry in the form of the latest select committee the house just formed. nobody took the republican only select committee investigation into katrina seriously. nobody remembers its weird whitewash with the president doing nothing wrong because nobody paid attention to the report. the democrats' strategy of boycotting republican investigations they consider to be a sham in that case quite successfully marginalized that investigation. on the other hand, there's darrell issa and elijah cummings, a totally different tactical example. as chairman of a key oversight

committee, darrell issa launched hearing after hearing and investigation after investigation after investigation, all of which the democrats think are shams. one of the ways they made their strongest case that darrell issa isn't really investigating anything, he is just grand standing and doing so in a way that's partisan, pointless, classless. one of the ways democrats have expressed that about darrell issa is by having the ranking democrat, elijah cummings, say that at all of the committee hearings. having elijah cummings in the hearing room is a critical way democrats made their case that darrell issa in their view is a clown and his supposed investigations should not be taken seriously. >> ladies and gentlemen, seeking the truth is the obligation of this committee. i can see no point in going further. i have no expectation miss lerner will cooperate. therefore we -- >> mr. chairman, i have a statement. i have a procedural question,

mr. chairman. i have a procedural question. mr. chairman, you cannot run a committee like this. you just cannot do this. we are better than that as a committee. i have asked for a few minutes to -- now you're turning me off. i am asking a question. i am the ranking member of this committee, and i wanted to ask a question. for the past year, the central republican accusation in this investigation -- >> we are adjourned. close it down. >> before our -- >> thank you. >> if you will sit down and allow me to ask the question, i am a member of the congress of the united states of america. i am tired of this. >> well --

>> we have members over here, each who represent 700,000 people. you cannot just have a one-sided investigation. there is absolutely something wrong with that, and this is absolutely unamerican. >> congressman darrell issa later had to apologize for his behavior toward elijah cummings, his now infamous cut his mic gesture. that's just one example of how it has been advantageous to the democrats to have elijah cummings in that room, to be participating in the darrell issa investigations that they think are ridiculous, if only so they can say on camera in front of everybody and on the record as part of those investigations, hey, we think this is ridiculous. this is nuts. what you're doing here is not real oversight, what you're doing here is wrong and let me tell you how. so those two examples. which of those two tactics should the democrats choose now? should they boycott like the

katrina report or should they elijah cummings this, make sure they always have a democrat in the room? the special select committee on benghazi was announced last week. today, the republicans rolled out their republican membership on the committee. democrats so far haven't said if they will participate at all. should they name five democrats to seats republicans give them on that committee, the republicans have seven seats, democrats will have five seats and essentially no power. should they put five democrats in those five seats? should they boycott the whole enterprise, say we are not participating in this sham or is there a third way. congresswoman rosa deloro suggest there might be a different way suggesting splitting the difference. she said the democrats shouldn't fill the seats they give them on the committee, they should send one person, one democratic member of congress to be there to speak up in that elijah cummings blow the whistle role in what's going on in that hearing room, also to get access to documents and subpoenas the committee will issue and obtain.

which tactic should the democrats choose with the new select committee? if you were a democrat in congress, what would you do? lar? yup. all five of you for $175. our clients need a lot of attention. there's unlimited talk and text. we're working deals all day. you get 10 gigabytes of data to share. what about expansion potential? add a line anytime for 15 bucks a month. low dues... great terms... let's close. new at&t mobile share value plans. our best value plans ever for business. can you start tomorrow? yes sir. alright. let's share the news tomorrow. today we failrly busy. tomorrow we're booked solid. we close on the house tomorrow. i want one of these opened up. because tomorow we go live... it's a day full of promise. and often, that day arrives by train. big day today? even bigger one tomorrow. when csx trains move forward, so does the rest of the economy.

csx. how tomorrow moves.

i couldn't lay down it was a i couldn't sit up because it burned so much. as first lady of our church we have meetings. we have activities. and i couldn't do any of that. any time anything brushed up against this rash it would seem like it would set it on fire again. it was the worst pain i ever had.

hiding the ball is one thing. deception is another. and this administration has gone out of their way. they've lawyered up to make sure that they could i think mislead congress. where they would make sure we

really couldn't ever get involved in anything but a goo ball. >> congressman pete sessions of texas speaking about the special select committee into benghazi. mr. sessions said he resented democrats were considering it a political witch hunt. well, mr. speaker, that must mean there's a witch somewhere. the whole idea of the witch hunt getting confused in this fight. democrats are having to decide if they're going to participate in what the republicans are doing with the special select committee or whether they will as they have in the past on other select committees, whether they're going to boycott this enterprise. joining us now, debbie wasserman schultz of florida, chair of the democratic national committee and member of state and foreign operations committee. thanks for being here. nice to see you. >> you, too, thanks, rachel. >> not just as a member of congress but as chair of the committee, do you think democrats should participate in what the republicans are doing with this select committee? >> you know, the more we spend time on this today, the more we

discussed it, the more i've had a chance to see that the republicans' proposal us for us to have no consultation on subpoena power, not even to be guaranteed to be able to be in the room when witnesses are interviewed. i mean, that's how imbalanced and farcical this will be. i'm really leaning more towards that we should not legitimize or lend our credibility to a committee or a process that is really as transparent as they come when it comes to what it really is trying to do is gin up their base and use it as a turnout machine. because reality is, rachel, they lost the aca as a white hot issue that gets their base fired up because the affordable care act is working. you have 8 million people that signed up. they've dropped about 20 points among their own partisans now, as far as that being an issue

that really drives them. clyven bundy blew up in their face, thought they would latch onto that, now they have to go back to benghazi. it is not going to be a credible processor fair, but leader pelosi did give the speaker another opportunity by sending him a letter, asking him to sit down with her, which he previously agreed to do, to see if they could work something out and make sure that if you're going to have a select committee that the process be fair. >> it seems to me what you just said about the way the republicans are trying to use this to excite their base, to drive turn out for the mid terms among the most fervent supporters, people that get fired up about this in a partisan way, seems to me that's now cooked, that's now going to happen. they're going to do this committee, with or without the democrats, use it that way. i think kevin drum was right when he described it as a made for fox news extravaganza. is there some value to having

anywhere between one and five democrats in the room every time there's a hearing to put a different perspective into it, to maybe interfere with the kinds of stuff they have been able to float on fox about this tragedy that the democrats believe aren't true? >> in our caucus meeting this morning on this topic there were credible cases made on both sides. there were members that felt very strongly that our participation would simply lend a farcical process that was a pure partisan political ploy. the credibility that it didn't deserve. and there was an effective case made, i thought, which could argue that we should make sure that we show up. you're right. elijah cummings has done a remarkable job at making sure the minority's voice, the democratic voice, is a part of that ridiculous process that darrell issa presides over. by the way, i don't know if this

is something you've had a chance to look at or talk about, rachel, even mckeen, chairman of the armed services committee, criticized darrell issa. there's really a civil war in the republican party over this now. mckeen criticized darrell issa for the last brigadier general he had testify on benghazi because he said no new information came up. that's the whole problem. they are totally using this and creating this select committee so that they can drag it out, shine, you know, shine more attention on it, get their base fired up, because they don't have any other issue left to really do that because they've lost them. >> i get that that is why they're doing it. that's also how i see it. how you guys are going to try to stop them from doing that remains to be seen and i guess we'll know when leader pelosi announces the decision on that membership. i think it is an interesting open question. thank you for helping us

understand it. i appreciate it. >> thanks, no problem, rachel. >> congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz of florida, chair of the democratic national committee. lots more to come, including a very, very excellent debunktion junction. stay with us. there are a lot of buyers for a house like yours. (husband) that's good to know. how much money do you think you'll need when you retire? then we gave each person a ribbon to show how many years that amount might last. i was trying to, like, pull it a little further. [ woman ] got me to 70 years old. i'm going to have to rethink this thing. it's hard to imagine how much we'll need for a retirement that could last 30 years or more. so maybe we need to approach things differently, if we want to be ready for a longer retirement. ♪ if we want to be ready for a longer retirement. we cannot let the fans down. don't worry!

the united states postal service will get it there on time with priority mail flat rate shipping. our priority has always been saving the day. because our priority... amazing! ...is you! the amazing spider-man 2 delivered by the united states postal service. still running in the morning? yeah. getting your vegetables every day? when i can. [ bop ] [ male announcer ] could've had a v8. two full servings of vegetables for only 50 delicious calories.

you know that tv show "30 rock"? that's where we work at msnbc. even if this job sucked, which it emphatically does not, the sheer fact that the job takes

place at "30 rock" would make it not suck. one of the things that's relevant about working at 30 rock is that it is across the street from radio city music hall. right now, radio city music hall is where the nfl draft is going on and has been for two days. it's quite literally right outside our windows. like if i angle that over my own desk and yelled, go patriots, there's a real chance i could start a riot in the streets below my window. >> let's go giants! >> let's go cowboys! >> the pro-football draft is where teams select new players for the upcoming season. it is basically the loudest, most celebrated human resources event of all time. even if you don't give a ten hut hike about the nfl or its loud and over the top draft, there is something about that spectacle that urgently needs debunking. that needs debunking and a few

other things need debunking in a special friday edition of debunktion junction straight ahead. stay with us. everything that you thought was important to you changes in light of having a child that needs you every moment. i wouldn't trade him for the world. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. if you're caring for a child with special needs, our innovative special care program offers strategies that can help.

mayo? corn dogs? you are so outta here! aah! [ female announcer ] the complete balanced nutrition of great-tasting ensure. 24 vitamins and minerals, antioxidants, and 9 grams of protein. [ bottle ] ensure®. nutrition in charge™. sunny or bubbly? cozy or cool? "meow" or "woof"? wheels or wheeeels? everything exactly the way you want it ...until boom, it's bedtime. your mattress isn't bliss: it's a battleground of thwarted desire. enter the all-new sleep number classic series. designed to let couples sleep together in individualized comfort. starting at just $699.99 for a queen mattress. he's the softy: his sleep number setting is 35. you're the rock: your setting is 60. that works. he's the night owl. his side's up while you're in dreamland. you're the early bird. up and at 'em. no problem, because you're in it together... keeping the love alive. and by the way - snoring? sleep number's even got an adjustment for that. crazy? only if sleeping peacefully with your

soulmate is crazy. find your sleep number setting only at one of our 425 stores nationwide. you can afford a sleep number bed, you can't afford another mediocre night's sleep. know better sleep with sleep number. a video about being fat and it's aimed at women because that's where i have the experience. i don't have the experience with men. maybe it will work. i don't know. but at any rate, there are a multitude of reasons why women

are fat. a long time ago, back in the '80s, when i was doing large groups of people and using any motor finger signaling, we came up with a bunch of reasons that you woman who were overweight gave for being fat. you'd be surprised at what some of them were but i'll tell you this -- >> you know what, actually don't. don't tell me. that's a man named loren parks, the biggest political donor in the state of oregon. he is currently focusing his money trying to defeat jeff mek rkley up for re-election. mr. parks in addition to spending ga zillions on or gone politics, he is a sex hip no therapist that can cure you of the trauma of being raped, but not if you're getting too much mileage out of that trauma and enjoying your status as a rape

victim. he says he knows why women are the weight they are he can tell through their idio motor finger signaling. >> using idio motor finger signaling -- >> mr. parks is the conservative oregon has in its politics, hip know therapy and all. we also featured the actions of idaho's ga zillion air, frank van der sloot. he got so mad when we covered him. the other day, from missouri, rex sinkfield, had his day in the sun when missouri adopted the tax plan he had been trying to bankroll forever. there's art pope in north carolina, transitioned from being a conservative put in charge of the state's budget by north carolina's republican governor.

and these guys aren't the only ones, this is just a representative sample. as campaign finance laws fall apart, every state started growing their own conservative activist political zillionaire. they are going to overwhelm the money in their states for candidates and policy. the biggest ones are the richest ones, two of the richest men on earth, today confirmed to politico.com plans to spend $125 million in the next six months on this year's mid term elections. i know to a certain extent, big numbers sound like big numbers. for perspective, what they plan on spending is a number larger than likely to be spent by any of the campaign committees from the republican or democratic party. they're bigger than the parties. so yeah, sure, oregon may have a hypnotist, and north carolina may have art pope, but all of us, we all have the koch brothers. they're so rich and spending so

fast, they're single, double handedly changing the scale of individual rich guy influence in american politics for the whole country. at the same time, the koch brothers are not just america's conservative activist billionaires. they're home state conservative activist billionaires in their home state. in kansas, koch industries is headquartered. for all they exert politically, in kansas they're dealing with it in a more concentrated form for longer. when the kochs came to prominence as political donors on the conservative side in 2010, the politicians they were funding above all others was then senator, now kansas governor, sam brownback. they also created from dust the congressional career of mike pompeo, represents the district where koch industries is from. they loom coast to coast, but

loom large in kansas like nowhere else. when sam brownback was about to be elected governor in 2010, democrats warned, quote, if sam becomes governor, i think essentially koch industries will have the key to the governor's office. once mr. brownback would become governor, one democratic political consultant told kansas city star, quote, one should monitor future asks for the kochs, everything that benefits them. one of the ways koch industries makes mountains of money is refining oil. and one of the legislative priorities for the now giant national network of koch related political groups is opposing alternative sources of energy not oil. here is the interesting thing how that's working out in their home state of kansas. they are asking for that in the home state of kansas. for whatever reason, they can't get it done there, at least not yet. six times this year according to activists in the state, koch supported group americans for prosperity and kansas chamber of

commerce got bills part of the way through kansas legislature that would get rid of kansas law that says a small proportion of energy in the state has to come from renewable sources. six times they tried it in the past year. but with all their clout and with sam brownback in the govern governor's office, complete republican control, they can't get it done. and first of all, that appears to be because renewable energy is popular, hard to demonize it. second of all, bottom line, kansas has one of the biggest wind energy industries in the nation. wind power is a $2 billion industry in kansas with 25,000 jobs and counting. the world's largest deal ever to build wind turbines will get a lot of parts assembled at a plant in hutchinson, kansas. that district happens to be represented in the kansas statehouse by a republican named steve becker. issues like that turn out to matter in kansas politics. last week, kansas legislature adjourned for the end of their session. at the last minute, koch

brothers funded group tried to get rid of the wind power law. they lost again, lost by three votes. again, by the count of wind power supporters in kansas, this was the sixth time the chamber of commerce and koch brothers group americans for prosperity lost on this issue in just this one state in just this one session. but since that vote, that last vote of the session, local reporters have been looking into the failed campaign against wind power in kansas, specifically they have been looking into these scary postcards sent around the state, trying to scare people, specifically trying to scare old people into thinking wind power is driving up kansas electric bills. kansas seniors are already stressed. call your legislator now, tell him to repeal the wind mandate. the local press started looking into the postcards. what they found at first was a mystery. the group that sent the postcards out was founded a couple weeks ago, registered in state papers to this lawyer's

office in topeka. the lawyer there tells the topeka capital journal he registered the group because americans for prosperity, afp, engaged him to. americans for prosperity and chamber of commerce said not us, we didn't send the postcards, this has nothing to do with us. but the head of the new group that sent the postcards is the sister of the chairman of the chamber of commerce. the group's lobbyist is the former director of afp in kansas, also a former koch industries lobbyist. with all of those connections piling up, with the lawyer saying he registered the group because americans for prosperity asked him to, it took about two days for reporters to figure it out. the head of the koch brothers group in kansas finally admitted yes, okay, in his personal capacity he helped set up the new group. says he did it on a personal level, not as afp. one of the republicans said that exma nation that that sounded,

quote, pretty bogus to him. that's further evidence of the dark campaigning that goes on in kansas politics. well funded special interest groups hide behind sham organizations to try to influence the electorate. the koch brothers negotiation for all their influence in the koch brothers home state of kansas, they have not been able to get kansas to dump the wind energy industry into the dirt. maybe even in a state where they have tons of influence, it is because it is too on the nose, too transparent for oil refining company to be declaring war on the sun, right? war on wind. but watch for this no matter what state you live in. when they wanted to appear to be something other than the richest men on earth shouting from their pile of oil refinery money, shouting down, what turned up in people's mailboxes instead when they wanted to look like something they aren't, was this plea from the elderly poor. it wasn't the koch brothers and afp and chamber of commerce asking you to get rid of this

policy, it is scared, poor, senior citizens. they represented themselves that way to try to get rid of solar and wind power in kansas. they also represented themselves that way when they tried to get rid of solar power in arizona, too, with a koch funded group in arizona also telling seniors that they are the ones that should be afraid. keep an eye on your mailbox and political ads the next few months. it is not halloween, pretending to be a poor old lady is a popular costume for the richest oil men on earth. steven becker, a lawmaker whose district got a huge chunk of that money for wind turbines. he voted to keep the wind power laws the koch brothers wanted to appeal. thank you for joining us. nice to have you here. >> rachel, thank you so much for your invitation. >> how would you describe koch industries and the koch brothers and their various networks, their strategy for trying to

influence your legislature on issues like this? how do you feel the pressure, if you do? >> the pressure, there is pressure. you can feel it. it was my understanding that one of the brothers was present in the statehouse when we took one of the many votes you mentioned on this particular issue of wind energy, that he was in the statehouse visiting personally with some of my colleagues. he did not contact me. but the pressure is there. americans for prosperity works so closely in harness with our state chamber of commerce and together they are a formidable team. >> it is hard for me to understand, looking at your

district, understanding how big economically the wind industry is in your district and around the state of kansas, what an important driver of jobs and economic growth wind has been in kansas, it is hard for me to see the chamber being able to make a clean decision that they ought to do something that would so palpably hurt that industry in your state. is there something i don't understand about how they square that? >> no. you raised the same question i do. i don't understand it. kansas is ranked third in the nation in wind energy potential, and i have come to believe that wind energy can drive our state economy. it is a resource that we have to develop. and i echo what you just said. it is pro-business, pro-jobs, it is stimulating our economy and

it is there for the taking, and i can't understand why we are to repeal these wind development standards we passed i think it was back in 2009. the koch brothers and americans for prosperity always argue for, or their argument is that we need a free market system. a free market should determine where our energy comes from. but i think that argument fails because in kansas we don't have a free market when it comes to electricity. consumers don't pick where they will get their electricity. they don't pick from what source their electricity comes from. there is no free market in electricity in kansas. it is controlled by our corporation commission.

so i think their argument for a free market fails. so it must be some other reason that they would not want to promote wind energy. >> kansas state representative steven becker. we talk about these issues a lot in the national perspective, thinking about what it must be like to be a state legislator. your experience on this is valuable. thanks for helping us understand, sir. i appreciate you being here. >> thank you very much for having me. >> thanks. cheers. lots to come, including debunktion junction, a special friday edition. stay with us. [ female announcer ] we eased your back pain, you turned up the fun. tylenol® provides strong pain relief while being gentle on your stomach. but for everything we do, we know you do so much more. tylenol®. if you have a business idea, we have a personalized legal solution that's right for you. with easy step-by-step guidance, we're here to help you turn your dream into a reality.

start your business today with legalzoom. we're here to help you turn your dream into a reality. to truck guys, the truck is everything. and when you put them in charge of making an unbeatable truck... ... good things happen. this is the ram 1500. the 2014 motor trend truck of the year and first ever back-to-back champion. guts. glory. ram.

can help your kids' school get extra stuff. they're the only cereals with box tops for education. you can raise money for your kids' school. look for this logo. only on big g cereals. you can make a difference. every cereal box counts. for $175 dollars a month? so our business can be on at&t's network you can make a difference. yup. all five of you for $175. our clients need a lot of attention. there's unlimited talk and text. we're working deals all day. you get 10 gigabytes of data to share. what about expansion potential? add a line anytime for 15 bucks a month.

low dues... great terms... let's close. new at&t mobile share value plans. our best value plans ever for business.

the minimum wage. you say i'm not in favor of the minimum wage. i am in favor of the minimum wage and you have yet to produce any document that shows i will not support the minimum wage. when will this end? >> let me stop this right -- >> bigger. when will this end? that was a young mitt romney when he was running against senator ted kennedy. when will this end? in 1994. mr. romney lost. but that debate lives forever. and that position of his that he was so mad about, that position of his lived for a while. when mr. romney ran for president in 2008 he was for the minimum wage and for raising it,

and then when mr. romney ran for president again in 2012 he was also for the minimum wage and for raising it. >> i heard haven't you talk about minimum wage on the trail and what your position is? >> my view has been to allow the minimum wage to rise with the cpi or another index and adjust automatically over time. >> you support that as president? >> i've already indicated that. >> that was in january 2012. mr. romney was trying to get the republican nomination for president. the right criticized him for saying that about the minimum wage. "the wall street journal" ran an editorial against him. if mr. romney was going to be the republican nominee, then the right did not want their nominee thinking the minimum wage should go up. and so, bingo, mitt romney decided he no longer believed that. after outcry from the right, romney reverses stance on minimum wage, and so he did. >> right now there's probably

not a need to raise the minimum wage. >> that was march. he was for it until people complained and then he was against it. but now turns out he's for it again. >> i, for instance, as you know, part company with many of the conservatives in my party on the issue of the minimum wage. i think we ought to raise it because frankly our party is all about more jobs and better pay, and i think communicating that is important to us. >> for people who want to raise the minimum wage right now, mr. romney's latest position on this issue is sort of understandably heartening. a prominent republican who agrees with us. honestly, grain of salt here. whether you don't like mitt romney's current position on the minimum wage or you do like it, just wait a minute. he's due to come around the next time he changes it. take support where you can get it, sure, but do not mistake agreeing with someone with the impression that that person is an authority on the subject who ought to be listened to because they have a principled position on the matter.

peoi go to angie's listt for all kinds of reasons. to gauge whether or not the projects will be done in a timely fashion and within budget. angie's list members can tell you which provider is the best in town. you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare. now that we're expecting, i like the fact i can go onto angie's list and look for pediatricians. the service providers that i've found on angie's list actually have blown me away. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust.

man: yeah, scott. i was just about to use the uh... scott: that's a bunch of ground-up paper, lad! scotts ez seed uses the finest seed, fertilizer, and natural mulch that holds water so you can grow grass anywhere! seed your lawn. seed it!

a short word that's a tall order. up your game. up the ante. and if you stumble, you get back up. up isn't easy, and we ought to know. we're in the business of up. everyday delta flies a quarter of million people while investing billions improving everything from booking to baggage claim. we're raising the bar on flying and tomorrow we will up it yet again. constipated? .yea dulcolax tablets can cause cramps but not phillips. it has magnesium and works more naturally than stimulant laxatives. for gentle cramp free relief of occasional constipation

that works! mmm mmm live the regular life. is. debunkion junction specsal friday day edition. the official magazine of the national geographic society, called "national geographic" they hold an annual photo contest. you submit your photo. if you win, grand prize winners get excellent stuff. you get tickets for a cruise, go on fancy photo workshops with professional photographers. they have an expedition to alaska they give away. national geographic is great. people send in great photos to this contest. it's not professionals, anybody can enter this contest, almost anybody can enter this contest. people from certain places are barred from entering this

contest. you cannot participate if you live in cuba, iran, sudan, north korea, or new jersey. true or false, people from new jersey are banned from the national geographic travel photo contest? false, actually, but just barely. new jersey was banned alongside syria, iran, and north korea but now new jersey is off the list. the reason all the other countries were on the list is because the united states sanctions them in one way or another. because of those sanctions national geographic couldn't send you cruise tickets if you won. that would be illegal. for new jersey though, there are no sanctions. it's something different. on the national geographic website they explain that new jersey law bans the requirement to join a contest because of the fee. after some complaints, the

legislature did vote to get rid of the law. chris christie signed that bill in january, meaning new jersey residents are now allowed to enter contests as long as those contests do not constitute illegal gambling. cuba, north korea, sudan, syria, new jersey all barred by national geographic, at one time but not anymore. also, the last three days it has been really loud in our offices here. the reason is, right outside our windows is where nfl fans from all over the map have been gathering for the nfl draft. i want to give a personal shout out to them because their cheering, chanting and just general insanity has made it almost impossible to do work in our offices for the last two days because we work on our show all day, do not pay too much attention to the nfl draft camp, but there was one player, one prospective nfl star which caused me at our show meeting in real life, not as part of this

debunktino junction to ask, is there really someone named ha ha clinton-dix. which leads us to this name? true or false, a guy that just got drafted to the nfl named ha ha clinton-dix? yes. this is ha ha clinton-dix. and ha ha clinton-dix is his name. so what do you think? i mean, guy's named ha ha clinton-dix. you think why doesn't a guy named ha ha clinton-dix change his name. wouldn't it be easier to go through life not named ha ha clinton-dix. maybe or maybe ha ha clinton-dix is daring you to make fun of his name by being named ha ha. look at him. number 6 for the university of alabama where they are not kidding ever about football. he played safety as a freshman. he has a 33 inch vertical leap. if he ever thought about tackling you or me, if he ever imagined doing that, you or i would require hospitalization just from the thinking of it. if you ever dream about making fun of ha ha clinton-dix, you

need to wake up and apologize promptly. ha ha clip ton diks was the 21st player picked in the first round. he was picked by the green bay packers and he is now everybody's new favorite player. it's a rule, nobody laughs at ha ha. "weekends with alex witt" starts now. the search is on. a hot air balloon bursts into flames and disappears. we'll tell you what witnesses saw moments before the crash. live at the site of the 9/11 memorial. at this hour officials are making a move that is being met with anger by some of the families who lost loved ones there. we'll explain. a new approach. if republican rand paul breaking ranks with his party on voter i.d. laws? in office politics, msnbc's reason than pharaoh talks about the challenges of getting a new show on the air.