now. >> good evening. our studios here in new york city are at 30 rockefeller plaza which is awesome. there's a subway station right in our building. it means that you never really forget the address of where you work, 30 rock is a really convenient thing to remember. they shoot saturday night live here. they shoot that show just a few floors up. one of the weird implication for us as employees that work in this building is that when we leave here to go home at night on friday or sometimes thursday there's a very tidy hitting cue outside the door of our building. people sleeping out on the street waiting to get in. the hotter the musical act and the host the longer and younger the line outside our building. the hipper and more emo the act,

the more likely it is that the line of people gets confused with an occupy protest. it is cool to see. it's one of cool things about working here. i always thought for the people that work in this building that work at "saturday night live" it must be cool to see. people care enough about what they do for a living that they will camp out for it on the sidewalk even in bad weather. i also think it must have been cool for the people that work at the supreme court to see the people waiting outside the court, camping out as of this weekend to try to get in to see the oral arguments in the health reform case. the arguments will be stretched out over three days. they happen in the mornings. it was an hour and a half ora arguments. there are some seats in the courtroom. if you want to get a seat, you have to get a ticket.

a ticket that you get from this policeman. >> ladies and gentlemen, can i have you attention? this is a reminder, i'm only giving out tickets for today's argument only. i'm giving out tickets for the first 60 seats. >> it's not exactly justin beiber will be here but you have to admit if you work at the supreme court that's got tot be cool to see the people lining up to come into the place where you work for a living. all the attention turned up people lining up to get in trying to get people to see the argument, it also turned up protesters. reporters say it was mostly protesters who were prohealth reform. there were some anti-health reform protesters and randomly there was rick santorum at the court. rick santorum turning up in the middle of the protests outside

the supreme court today. he was not there to hear the case be argued inside. he was there just to participate in the outside the court expression of feelings. for the lucky people that got inside, let me give you a little sweet taste of what those people got to feast themselves on. this is actual audio from the supreme court's oral arguments today which all those people lined up to see. you're about to hear an exchange. >> i do think that's the strongest textual indication. >> but then the question that i asked you is if you're right that this penalty is not covered by section 7421, if you're right about that, why should we deal with the jurisdictional question at all.

>> i'm sorry. i'm sorry. i am a civics dork. i love policy. i love litigation. i love fighting about policy. i love courtroom argument. i'm really interested in what happens with the health reform act of the supreme court but today was a jurisdictional discussion about the applicability of the 1867 anti-injunction act which is hard to stay focused on. even to lawyers and people that are dorkier enough about this is not riveting enough to explain this. it was not that exciting on it face. the reason everybody is turning out is because it's been built up to be the super bowl of partisan arguments. literally politico called it the super bowl for supreme court watchers.

tfrs billed as the health law showdown. supreme court showdown on obama court begins today. it's a huge showdown. it's a matter of principle. the republican side of this argument, remember the plaintiffs in this case are the states, specifically republican attorneys general from 22 states and in places that had democratic attorney generals who would not do it is four republican governor who stepped in and put their names to it. it's all republicans. what they are suing about specifically is the individual mandate. the party of the law that says everybody has to have health insurance. the individual mandate is what this super bowl of all partisan political fights is all about. >> it is a monumental historic insertion of federal power into one-sixth of the economy, the likes of which i think the mern

people clearly have indicated they do not favor and they oppose. >> if the government can tell people that will, where is the line of what they couldn't tell people. >> we're just begging the federal government to please leave us a shred of freedom, please. don't make us buy a product that we don't want to buy. is that asking too much? we need to wake up in terms of the issue that's at stake here. it's our freedoms that are at stake. >> a shred of freedom. that's what this whole thing is about, the individual mandate. republicans are against it. republicans hate the individual mandate. also, the individual mandate is the republicans idea. this is the relevant but often left out context for what is happening at the supreme court this week and what it says about the principles or lack thereof of the republican party. republican senators are holding photo ops outside the supreme

court to decry and demonize this thing that they invented and that they introduced 19 years ago. in 1993 when bill clinton was president, he argued that employers should have to provide health coverage for their employees. employers were going to be mandated to provide health coverage. the republican answer to that, the republican plan was to say no, it shouldn't be employers who have to provide health coverage, it should be individuals who take that responsibility. the 1993 republican health care plan in the senate included, look at that, something called an individual mandate. a requirement that individuals must purchase health insurance. the author of that plan was a republican senator named john chafee of rhode island. nearly half of the republican caucus in the senate signed onto this plan at the time. it wasn't just a small detail, it was pretty much what they had to offer.

it was right at the center of what they were all about. this is from the national journal at the time. the republican senate plan would create an individual mandate for health insurance similar to one that now exists for auto insurance, from the associated press. congressional republicans pushed their own proposal which would require individuals to purchase insurance. went around and asked republicans back nb 1993, they were just for the individual mandate, ta were dying to tell you how much they loved it. the bill's author, i and the majority of republicans strongly believe the route to go with is an individual mandate. bob doyle, we have an individual mandate in our plan. you have an individual mandate where all persons would have the responsibility to have coverage? is that correct? >> senator bond answer, that's correct. senator don nickels of oklahoma.

we have an individual mandate. we say everybody in america has to provide insurance for themselves. they put out a plan that features an individual mandate as its main component. newt gingrich was for the mandate as recently as 2008. mitt romney not only clean upped an individual mandate as part of a health reform that he signed as governor of massachusetts, he came out in favor of a federal health care individual mandate back in 1994. back when it was a republican idea. he wanted the republican individual mandate idea not just fr massachusetts but the whole country. now that it's president obama who is for this thing, it's tyranny. leave us a shred of freedom. if you want to see happen in just one person. chuck grassley was one of the spon sorks one of republicans

that sponsored the individual mandate bill. after president was sworn into office just as the health reform debate was getting away, chuck grassley was arguing for the individual mandate. >> when it comes to states requiring it for automobile insurance the principle ought to lie the same way for health insurance because everybody has some health insurance costs and if you aren't insured there's no free lunch. i believe there's a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandate. >> after president obama said chuck grassleyi agree with you, watch what happens. >> i think and i think constitutional lawyers think the mandate is inconstitutional. >> now you do. it's okay if you're a

republican. if a democrat has the same idea, tyranny. if a democrat has the same idea, it's unconstitutional. when republicans proposed it, great idea. a conservative solution. when a democrat has the idea, it's socialism tyranny and unconstitutional. in case you were under any illusion there's a matter of principle at work here. joining us is senior editor for slate. she watched the proceedings at the supreme court. it's great to have you here. >> thank you for having me. >> i got to ask you if the arguments today at the supreme court were any less stolty fiing. >> it takes a special, special kind of nerd to really enjoy dusty old 19th century statutory construction. i found it slightly thrilling but i do appreciate the eye

glazing quality of the little snippet you just played. >> the fight over the individual mandate, is that what you expect the justices are going to be into tomorrow? are they going to be get to the meat of what everybody is excited about? >> yeah, tomorrow's the big game. today was, i described it as the court coughing up a constitutional hairball. it turns out this tax law doesn't preclude us from hearing it, move along. today was so not dramatic and in that sense kind of reassuring. you got to see the court almost unanimously come to a conclusion. it was really what they do best. tomorrow i think the gloves come off. tomorrow we start hearing this talk of tyranny and freedom and broccoli everywhere. i think tomorrow's the big day but by every measure. >> what is the broccoli argument?

>> i'm obsessed with broccoli. the argument at its very core if the government can force you to purchase something that you don't want to purchase and that's the argument here that's been made by the challengers is what is unprecedented here is not that the government is regulating activity but for the first time they are regulating inactivity. you just want to be in your house, you want to be left alone. fp your kidney fail t you want to pop it back in, left alone, no insurance for you. the argument is if you don't want to buy something and the government is forces them to buy you something then what's to force them to buy you buy broccoli because it's even more highly correlated with good health outcomes than health insurance. the next step is the general motors car to boost the economy. it's this slippery slope argument that really did persuade some lower court judges in this case. >> the counter failing argument,

what my impression is that health care isn't just like any other market. it's not like the market for cars or the market for leafy greens. it's a market where people participate in this market even if they don't purchase health insurance and if they don't have any money. if you have heart attack and you get dragged into the emergency room, somebody will pay for your care. you can't be an inactive par tis pants in the health care system unless you agree to never get health care. your inactivity isn't guaranteed by you and therefore it isn't being regulated? >> that's it. whether you choose to be purchasing health insurance or you kmooz to not purchase it, you're making an economic decision that is rationally related to the entire economy. let's remember, this is one-sixth of the economy. this is a huge multistate economy.

it's not something trivial like the court is saying guns near schools may not have a basis so to say that implicates commerce. this does. i think it's both the argument this is you making a choice by not making a choice. emergency room is not going to turn you away. everyone else is premiums get jacked up by $1,000. that loops back to your point which is why this is a conservative idea. it's an anti-free rider idea that got spun out into a broccoli bill. >> that part that we're just discussing it is what they are getting tomorrow. can i ask you to come back and explain hold up it went. >> i will only if you drink every time i say broccoli. >> i can't do it on the air but i'm keeping a tally for friday's cocktail moment.

>> thanks. it's going to be, tomorrow is going to be, even today was boring legally speaking. i'm looking forward to those audio clips coming up tomorrow. still ahead, protest continue over the shooting death of teenager trayvon martin in florida's stand your ground gun law stay with us. coffee doesn't have vitamins... unless you want it to. splenda® essentials™ no calorie sweetener with b vitamins, the first and only one to help support a healthy metabolism. three smart ways to sweeten. same great taste. splenda® essentials™. same great taste. like, keep one of these over your head. well, i wasn't "supposed" to need flood insurance, but i have it. fred over here chose not to have it. ♪

me, i've got a plan. fred he uh... fred what is your plan? do i look like i have a plan? not really. [ female announcer ] only flood insurance covers floods. for a free brochure, call the number on your screen. my feet and exactly where i needed more support. i had tired, achy feet. until i got my number. my dr. scholl's custom fit orthotics number. now i'm a believer. you'll be a believer, too. learn where to find your number at drscholls.com.

it was one month ago today that 17-year-old trayvon martin was shot and killed in florida. some of the details of his killing are well known by now. he was unarmed, walking home from a convenient store carrying a bag of skittles and ice tea. the man that has shot him has confessed to the shooting high pressure he's not been arrested or charged with any crime. this is the picture you have probably seen of mr. zimmerman. this is a more recent photo of him. people held rallies and marches and vigils in trayvon martin's memory today. organizers said at this point a spoke out was not enough. speaking was not enough. it's time to yell. over the weekend people wore hoodies to church saying he

looked suspicious because he was wearing a hooded sweatshirt. last week people gathered in sanford. today big crowds gathered there again marching to the sanford civic center where his parents spoke before the city council. this is his mother sabrina fulton. >> as parent, you want some answers to your questions. i'm not asking for anything, any extra favors, i'm just asking for what you would ask for as a parent. i know i cannot bring my baby back, but i'm sure going to make changes so that this does not happen to another family. >> the backdrop of that hearing and the protests in san ford and across the country, anonymous law enforcement authorities have

leaked to the kbleed the shooter george zimmerman's side of the story. according to these sources or a specific source, mr. zimmerman said he turned around and was walking back to his suv when trayvon martin approached him from behind. the two exchanged words and trayvon punched him to the nose. mr. zimmerman said he shot the teenager in self-defense. mr. zimmer man is 28 years old and he followed him. there are more announcement releases of records about trayvon martin's suspensions to school. once for writing the letters wtf on a locker. his mother said they killed my son and now they are trying to kill his reputation. a conservative website posted tweets from trayvon martin's

twitter account as to if they shed light on whether he should have been shot. >> who was the officer who made a decision for whatever reason to not do a background check on george zimmerman who had just shot and killed trayvon benjamin martin? yet saw fit to do a background check on this dead child on the ground. can't you understand that none of this would be going on if they simply would have treated george zimmerman like they would have treated trayvon martin. >> with the furor of the case showing no signs of calming

down, the interwoven strands are outrage over the racial profiling that appears to have led to the shooting in the first place. trayvon martin seeming suspicious because of his race according to the shooter. the excusing of violence of black men because of the racial profiling of black men as dangerous. the gun law that's been cited as the reason to not arrest the shooter in the case. the so called stand your ground law of chasing somebody down on the street is not stand your ground. whether potential murder cases are going unprosecuted because these laws make it harder to bring those cases in court. joining us now is senator charles schumer. thank you for joining us.

>> good evening. >> you have asked to attorney general eric holder to investigation these stand your ground laws. you've been calling them a shoot first, ask questions later. why do you think the justice department should look into this? >> these laws that have been passed recently change the common law and the law we've always observed, the law i was taught in law school 30 years ago which is if you're outside your home and faced with a troubling situation, you don't shoot, you try to avoid doing that and try to invoke law enforcement when ever possible. the stand your ground law says if you imagine you might be in physical danger, you can shoot. the orlando sentinel, the local paper studied 13 instances where stand your ground was invoked

and a person invoked that law in all but one of the cases the person that was shot or shot at did not have any weapon at all and six people were killed and four people were injured. clearly something is amiss here. i have a lot of faith in our justice department and our sheriff and police. they do a lot better in most situations than a civilian. for instance, had mr. zimmerman actually listened to the police when he called because he saw trayvon, they told him not to pursue him and to let the police come and pursue him. had zimmerman listened, things would be a lot better today than they were then. we need a broad investigation for two reasons. one, this law which is now as you said in 20 states could be

causing more violence than it prevents and it seems to be preventing the law enforcement from being able to prosecute cases that would otherwise be actionable. those are pretty serious things and i think we need a quick and thorough investigation of how this law is working and maybe the mistakes on their own would repeal it. we certainly should examine these laws which have been passed sort of in a rushed way by more than 20 states. >> one of the things that interwoven with concern over these relatively recent standard your ground gun laws or stand your ground antiself-defense laws in the state s the concern about how race factors into this. you identified the core idea of these laws if you have to imagine you might be in danger and imagination is inflected by all sorts of things including prejudice.

when we imagine threats we imagine them coming from all sorts of places that aren't a legally actionable course. do you think the long standing concerns about racially bias policing about racially selective prosecution can be addressed at the same time? i realize the gun laws are novel but those concerns about race and policing and prosecution are old. >> my call is for an investigation of this law, which is new. we do have a civil rights division which has investigated cases where race may well be at issue over and over again. i will tell you this, i'm dubious of these laws which encourage vigilanteism. the idea that anyone when they think that they are in serious physical harm, that they're going to be punched that they should take out a gun and shoot

the person who they think might be purging them is really very, very troublesome. we ought to get to the bottom of it before the laws spread and before they come to ingrained in our culture. it seems to encourage vigilanteism when the right thing to do is rely on law enforcement. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. right now the most important figure in newt gingrich's run for the presidency is named ellis the elephant. that story and the interview tonight with frank rich.

programming note, i will be on the late show with david letterman tonight. that's on cbs at 11:35 eastern. i was a suspicion that mr. letterman will ask me about nuclear north korea and my pants. tomorrow i'm going to be on npr. i will also be appearing on the today show on cbs. i'll be on at the 7:00 a.m. eastern hour. that's all before i'm back here again tomorrow night. this type of schedule for me can really only mean one thing, right, book's out. my first book comes out officially tomorrow. i'm very proud of it. i'm nervous it's going out in the world. it's about the civilian politics

of the world. it's about ronald reagan running the war while in his pjs. it's about our connection with the war in pakistan. it's about l.b.j. yelling things to reporters from his toilet. the book is dedicated to vice president dick chaney who i wish all the best from his recovery from his heart transplant. the book is out tomorrow. we'll be right back. multi-policy discount. paperless discount. paid-in-full discount. [yawning] homeowner's discount. safe driver discount. chipmunk family reunion. someone stole the nuts.

squirrel jail. justice! countless discounts. now that's progressive. call or click today.

three new things to report tonight on 2012 and on the newt gingrich campaign, specifically. first all major paper print reporters have been pulled off the newt gingrich for president campaign. they did not coordinate. the illinois primary was the last gingrich stop pr the associated press and on friday, politico.com pulled their embedded reporters from the gingrich campaign too. that leaves just the television networks out there on the campaign trial with newt gingrich but no print reporters. second, newt gingrich has cancelled his campaign events in north carolina. mr. gingrich will stay close to his home in northern virginia and go to campaign events there.

the north carolina primary is on may 8th. virginia is already done. that brings us to our third new thing to report about the gingrich presidential campaign. it's about mr. gingrich's wife, she is out campaigning for her husband all week in a very upcoming state, her state of wisconsin. this is a new thing. she doesn't go out to events on her own all that often. for example, here is mr.mrs. gingrich today at an elementary school. it's a kindergarten through 8th grade school. she took a tour this afternoon and did a book reading from her book "sweet land of liberty" which is great if you're courting the k to 8 vote. she's doing a lot of that this week. she has nine scheduled campaign stops, four of them are too elementary schools. kids cannot vote, but they can buy books. the gingrich campaign has been defined by its multitasking,

part campaign, part book tour. this is at a national federation for republican women event in kansas, missouri back in october mr. gingrich was the featured speaker and right after he walked off stage and set up tables for a good old fashion promotional event to sign their representative books. the book is about a character called ellis the elephant. here is the ellis the elephant brought to life by a person in a big plushy costume. the person is a gingrich campaign staffer be p a campaign staffer has to put on the costume to promote the book at a campaign event because that's what the campaign is for. this is ellis back in october. this is ellis again today with callista gingrich at her

elementary school book signing/campaign event, and scene. mr. gingrich is pressing on after losing the louisiana primary this weekend. he came in a very distant third in louisiana. that's a problem for newt gingrich even if his strategy is to go to the republican convention in tampa and try to win the nomination there through a contested convention. the republican party rule say in order to compete for the nomination, in order to have your name put forward, you have to win at least five states. any candidate needs to win a plurality to have their name put forward for the nomination. mr. gingrich has won two states, his home state of georgia and south carolina. two does not round up to five. it's not looking good for mr. gingrich. i bet it's still looking good for book sales. there seems to be trouble at the

top. take a look at the results from the primary this weekend. rick santorum won the state overall. he got the most votes in every single income brook et. republican who is made under $30,000 a year. santorum defeated romney there by 53 point ts. people making 30 to 45,000, santorum won. then mitt romney does run away with it in the top income bracket. look at that. among people making more than $200,000 a year, that's what mitt romney wins. mitt romney was the win erp in louisiana only among be richest sliver of the electorate. even when he loses, he winnings the rich people vote. if you're mitt romney or a strategist working, how do you put together a national win when

your base, the only people you can really count on everywhere are the tiniest sliver of the richest people in the country who happen to be voting that day. it's a tough strategy. here is the good news for the romney campaign. it's been done before. >> it's an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mores. some people call you the elite. i call you my base. >> worked once. maybe they can be mitt romney's base. frank rich joins us next.

great frank rich joins us. newt gingrich was out on the with b vitamins, the first and only one to help support a healthy metabolism. three smart ways to sweeten. same great taste. splenda® essentials™. to put more giddy-up in our get-along. it's time to start gellin' with dr. scholl's...

... and mix a little more hop in our hip-hop. with the energizing support and cushioning of dr. scholl's massaging gel insoles ... you'll want to get up and go.

newt gingrich was out on the campaign trail speaking in front of local republicans in delaware mitt romney was out on the campaign trail. rick santorum was out and about being visibly political today. we cannot say he was out on the campaign trail because rick santorum specifically was in washington, d.c. today. rick santorum is not on the ballot in washington, d.c. it's not a conspiracy against him or something, his campaign just did not get it together to ask for him to be on the ballot there. the santorum campaign didn't pay the fee. they didn't ask for petition for signature. they didn't bother. he was in washington, d.c. today any way. while the supreme court was hearing arguments, rick santorum was outside the court with all

the protesters. >> what do you say to the protester are saying health care is a right? is it a right? >> i believe basic rights are guaranteed under the declaration of independence were recognized under the decklation of independence. they are protected by the constitution of this country. rights should not and cannot be created by a government where because any time government creates a right, they can take that right away and they can force you as you've seen with obama care, they can force you to do things that are against what you believe is right for you and your family. they can do things that you believe are against the teachings of your faith. >> nobody asked rick santorum about the tenents. nobody asked about religion. he was just asked open ended

question is health care a right like all these people are chanting. rick santorum goes right to the lady parts. this is what the campaign is like on the republican side this year. frank rich writes today, santorum, flaky is not some out liar in his party or presidential field, he was an advanced man about to ambush an unsuspecting america that thought women's access to birth control had been resolved almost half a century ago. frank, thanks for being here. >> delighted to be here. >> how do you think that rick santorum got tot be the advanced man on birth control? i'm not surprised he went there but why did everybody else follow him. >> i think this party has moved so far to the right that you have even a so called moderate, by the standards of this crowd,

like mitt romney being against planned parent hood. wants to defund planned parenthood, want to end title ten, this important federal program that helps women gelt basic health care let abirth control. they sort of gone off the rail. you talked about the blunt amendment. that was an amendment that passed with every single republican in the senate, 45 of the voting except for olympia snow who is fleeing and essentially allowed employers to get rid of all health care for women and men that matter if they had a moral objection. good-bye to mammograms, contraceptions, pap smears. i think they have lost touch with reality. they have lost touch with american voters. >> is there a parallel republican logic that you can see at work that explains what they are doing? i ask not because i would be

surprised they are moving farther to the right but because it was the blunt rubio amendment, marco rubio was to be the vice presidential nominee of his party. he put his name on the secondary amendment of that and scott brown who is facing a moderate electorate in massachusetts running against popular litz beth warren. olympia snowe didn't vote for it on her way out the door but other people that got aspirations in big races are going with this. is there a lonlic that explains it. >> i don't get it. do you? it seems to me if you are from a completely red state you can do whatever you want but in a state like massachusetts for instance i don't get the logic of it. i don't think there is a majority that wants all of the stuff stripped away and the majority of the country is women. while there are some women including the republican party that defend this policy, most women, according to polls, are against it.

you have to wonder if they are an echo chamber. i look for a mac veilian theory that would explain how it will pay off in november but i don't see it. >> you write about the right on the republican side sort of playing a long game, that this didn't just emerge now. it is something that's had longer horizons from the party. where do you think it came from? >> i think it came from the 1960s so like so many neurotic things this the republican party. what's important to remember is that the republican party had a history of being pro suffrage for women, most state legislators that approved the amendment were republican controlled. richard nixon supported the equal rights amendment. it started to change in the early 70s when strategists saw well, we can play the southern strategy to bring over a certain kind of particularly white, male, democratic voter, the reagan democrats on race .

there was also reaction to the feminist movement. you see, even in think aerltly '70s before roe v. wade was decided, before legal abortion was a political issue in this country, there were running campaigns against the idea that women should work and be outside of the home and have equal pay. like uppity women. they were ort of against it. i think that's the seeds of it, not abortion. although obviously the religious right would rise and abortion would be a big issue, too. >> frank rich, wrifr wrir at large for "new york magazine." reading you exploring the roots of this and hearing you talk about it here makes me feel like we are on to something and being puzzled by this, but i'm still puzzled by it. i feel hike this is one of those things that requires more work. >> i agree. >> frank, thanks very much. >> thank you for having me, rachel. right after the show, this is big news, on the last word with lawrence o'donnell, his guest tonight is the lawyer for george zimmerman, the lawyer for

the man who's alleged to have shot trayvon martin. so you will not want to miss that. and here, the new issue republicans are hoping will be their big win against president obama this fall, i think they are wrong bsh i i will tell you what it is next.

all told, thousands of pounds of nuclear material have been removed from vulnerable sites around the world. this was deadly material that is now secure and now can never be used against a city like seoul. >> president obama speaking today in south korea. the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on her hiroshima. there is a photo of the bomb that blast. the plane that dropped the bomb on nagasaki a couple of days

later. this is the photograph. you can see the mushroom cloud over nagasaki there. the reason we have these photos of these nuclear bombs going off in these two cities in japan is because along with boxcar and the anola gay we flew planes with them that took pictures of the explosions. the plane that photographed the nagasaki explosion was called big stink and the plane that flew the hiroshima bomb was necessary evil. the first of those bombs killed 75,000 people instantly. the second one at nagasaki killed 40,000 more people instantly. within a couple months, 150,000, possibly 250,000 people were del dead. killed by just those two bombs. the nuclear bombs we've got

today are roughly ten times the yield of what we dropped on hiroshima. the hiroshima bomb stantly killed 75,000 people. imagine a bomb blast ten times that size. can you imagine us using a bomb like that now? a bomb that size. we have 1800 bombs that size deployed right now. 1800 nuclear bombs, each ten times the size of the hiroshima bomb, all deployed and ready to be fired and we have thousands more in our stockpile. if you can imagine us dropping another nuclear bomb, like we did on hiroshima and nagasaki, how many can you imagine us drop something how many more nuclear bombs do you think america could ever conceivably launch in our future as a nation? could we launch two more? ten more? could we launch 100 more? a 1,000, more than 5,000 bombs each time the size of hiroshima? what would be left. prth president obama is in seoul, south korea for his

summit on locking up vulnerable nuclear material to keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorist and off the black market. the president said we have more nuclear weapons than we need. this is not yet a central issue in the president's re-election campaign, but republicans want it to be. republicans are banking on us, the country, thinking that the ability to blow up hiroshima ten times over, thousands of times over and then thousands more times over is not enough. and that reducing the number of nuclear weapons we've got, either all together or deployed and ready to fire, reducing the number of nuclear weapons would be a sign of weakness because who knows, maybe we will have to drop 2,000 nuclear bombs at some point. republicans think this will be a good issue for them to use against president obama. i do not think they are right but i'm looking forward to them trying to make the case.