goal that can be negotiated in order to some degree here. yet or. possibly it's not traded now but it could be in the future. of the lower show and get the real headlines with none of the mercy or can live out of washington d.c. now tonight we're going to take a look back at last night's g.o.p. debate which centered around foreign policy once again there were a lot of statements to make you shutter and a few that seemed a little too realistic to be true so we're going to get into the truths and the myths of what was said with jack rice throughout the lifespan of the movement there is one theme that has definitely helped steady the excessive use of force and violence by police departments across the country so we're going to speak to the

former police chief of seattle to get to the bottom of why and see what can be changed and then in an audit moment last night g.o.p. candidate newt gingrich came out sounding more reasonable than all the other candidates on stage when it came to immigration surrogacy of his idea of legal status but no guarantee of pathway to citizenship could actually work or have all that and more fit and i couldn't get this happy hour but first let's take a look at the mainstream media has decided to miss. all right so it's now been more than two months since the occupy wall street movement first began in zuccotti park on september seventeenth and throughout that time we've seen large marches we've seen clashes with police on sundays tens of thousands of people being on the streets on either side of the battle so a new study has compiled some figures to see just how much the extra police presence and so far has been costing the city and the mainstream media was sure to jump all over it and immediately bring in the occupy movement itself has a lot of money make

a new report shows that the occupy movement has cost taxpayers thirteen million dollars tab for the cities where they took place has reached thirteen million dollars that according to a survey done by the associated press movement claims the rich don't pay their fair share well it's been going on for more than two months now but yes he's paying the bill you are the movement is actually sitting on a lot of cash and sort of tout it is a loose non-corporate movement it seems that got a lot of donations there off the organize they have live stream camera operators they publish their own newspapers who's running the show and in charge of all that money. the new york group i think of a lot of money if you want to consider you know four hundred thousand dollars or whatever it is a lot of money these days they have parcel that out to some groups around the country but there's no real national organization. now it's interesting here is there's no question as to whether cities spending that much money that's where

that's been warranted but to bring out hundreds of police using tear gas flash grenades having this massive police presence all of which cost money was really needed instead it's an automatic demonization of the movement and this is their fault the taxpayer money has been spent forget about the fact that they are also taxpayers it's also not mentioned is if you look at any other large event that's held the city on any given day well it could cost a lot more money on that one day and i lay for example the michael jackson memorial concert cost the city one point four million dollars for one day but you didn't hear the media acting very concerned about that and the most important thing though is once again the message that's being missed here americans are unhappy with the way their taxpayer dollars are being spent because at this point they've been selves have very little say in it it's the government that chooses to award contracts or tax breaks or firms that top officials are going to have cozy relationships with it's called crony capitalism it's the government decided to bail out wall street instead of helping americans get back to work get their homes out

from under water so let's look at some of those expenses because everybody out there remember tarp a cool seven hundred billion dollars that was given out to the banks about homeland security that pays for cities to have fancy weapons fancy machinery things that cities do not need tanks that is something that no city in the united states needs at all and yet that homeland security budget just purposeful year two thousand and eleven was forty three point six billion dollars now let's get to the next point to this ridiculous assertion that having a couple hundred thousand dollars in the bank in some way makes the occupy movement look rich do you know how much president obama made in fundraisers held in new york on a single day earlier this year two point three million dollars and i didn't hear anybody the mainstream media griping about how much security for that even cost the taxpayers also let's think about the bank profits those the. exact same banks they hope to bring down the financial system and well and were bailed out their profits

just in the third quarter of this year were thirty five point three billion dollars so they're the ones out there they're making a killing they're raking in the profits while other suffer and so occupy is trying to bring awareness to that they're just trying to wake people up to the inequality and to the lack of fairness in the system it's not that they're young lazy hippies that are just rolling in the bill they're out there and i'm bringing attention to the cause and i personally think that it's worth it i think it's worth it because this is something that needs to be heard and i think that if you took a survey out there if you were to ask americans whether they'd rather have you know their money spent their taxpayer dollars on helping occupy wall streeters people who are trying to occupy trying to get people to start talking about inequality the maybe that's what they would choose but let's not act like everything else doesn't matter but occupy does i have that's what the mainstream media that's why i talk about war spending like talk about expensive weapons systems that we don't need homeland security projects that are completely unnecessary and a waste taxpayer money off by wall street is a much better and

a much easier scapegoat the real money drainers in our society that's what they choose to miss. well last night c.n.n. hosted a nother g.o.p. debate and once again we got a good look at what foreign policy just might look like if any of these candidates out there were to become the commander in chief as event was hosted by two conservative think tanks the heritage foundation and the american enterprise institute and the audience questions came either from scholars of those two think tanks or those with bush foreign policy connections so to at least some degree see a little bit of disagreement within the field rather than just a unified bom bom gone away mentality across the board but often it was left up to congressman ron paul in my opinion to be the only sane one of the group and or mind

of the other candidates the empire is expensive their actions abroad have consequences a constitution is meant to protect our civil liberties which others so quickly want to strip away on the name of security and despite president obama's rather hawkish foreign policy they want to talk about spending the war on terror launching drone strikes in yemen and somalia as well as pakistan well a lot of the candidates out there they seem to think that the president was making us let's say so let's go through some of the clips separate some of the g.o.p. foreign policy truths from the myths ok we're actually going to do that interest a minute we're waiting for i guess to get on the line we're having a problem with that but just give us one minute now let's talk about last night's debate a focus on foreign policy but it doesn't mean that a few other topics didn't also make it and one of the topics the having to make it in was immigration or most of the candidates railed on about the need to secure our border as if that's going to solve the problem of our lack of comprehensive immigration reform new gamers for once actually made

a little bit of sense most importantly here mind a tad bit the immigration is a human issue keep it here twenty five years us three kids and kids you've been paying churches obeying the law you belong to a local church i don't think we're going to separate you from your family or through you forcefully and kick you out. now we heard of we heard a little bit you don't have a heart talk that we heard from perry in the past but since then he has some sense completely shied away but now that he's actually brought this up might we be getting somewhere and let's take a look at a very specific proposal that he referred to here to discuss this with me is a man did beetle editorial or a man is going to be here in just one second we're going to talk about newt gingrich's proposal so a man and beetle is the editorial assistant for think progress dot org and newt gingrich like i said again once again said that this is a human issue some people lived here for twenty five years and so we have to think about it matter thanks so much it here ok so do you think that this is

a slightly and a good thing that at least somebody one of the candidates out there reminding people that these are human beings that are living in this country they have families they don't need to be torn apart. you would think that you would be admitting that people are human would be a good thing but if you look at his plan it's still just as crazy because it's it in his campaign is emphasized over and over that this is not amnesty they're not offering citizenship so you're looking at a play on where you would create a second class of people this would be a race to the bottom for employers just plain would be reliant on the people who have legal status alone if they had jobs that the foundation that came with this plan that they saw it is a what is the way for the market to provide for people who wanted to come to the u.s. to work but the problem is that if you were legal status is based on your employment that employers have no reason to care about your working conditions because they see you that then you are reliant on them to harm your status so employers don't have to pay them as much they could have poor working conditions and if workers

complained if they were going to take away your legal status you've got to go back home and all the same time is incentivizing businesses to to hire undocumented workers so they can still so that they can get into this program is what you're saying. i'm not sure it would be incentivised i think the biggest problem is that it's a way to where it's not providing for citizenship it's saying that they can come here to work but then if you're not working you have to go back home so for people who have their families here they have their whole lives here then they're going to stick with the job no matter what the conditions are right now rick perry in the past you know the one that is the governor of texas the state that shares the largest border with mexico actually sounded you know remember that thing he said at a couple of debates past where if you don't believe these children certification then you don't have a heart he quickly very quickly had to walk all of that back do you think it's too bad that last night when at least newt gingrich started. this policy but he didn't get into details of it or not he was still talking about the fact that these are individuals that have families because you know a little bit of

a move by perry not to get back into it i think it was i think it's he said before that i think it's he said his wife told him that it was. just a call people heartless what it was a chance that he could have stood up and said something that you've heard senator rubio say we need to be their party that's pro regal immigration not anti illegal immigration clearly his jihad the presidential candidates for his party are not getting the message because they are not talking about people in terms of human beings they're still talking about it in these extreme terms that mitt romney last night is still apparently trying to be the anti illegal. anti immigrant most extreme anti immigrant of the bunch because it has in the after debate in all discussions to console about his comments that his advisor was a basically explained good that mitt romney's policy on immigration would be to make conditions so horrible that undocumented immigrants would have to leave by is that going to work for republicans right now if you just think about the way that

it's going to look in two thousand and twelve and president obama he got the hispanic vote last time around but this time what is he going to run or it's not like he has you know immigration policy successes for for actually. out there so it's not somewhere where republicans could point the finger and try to actually bring in this vote since obama hasn't satisfied that base but i don't see republicans really have a better record on and on immigration compared to president obama at least at least the obama administration is talking about it in terms of. least trying to. and i know many people disagree with them put at least the obama administration is meeting and saying we're trying to get rid of. go through documented immigrants who are have committed crimes in there they've explained that they're trying to prioritize so that they're not getting rid of a grandmother who's been here for seven years and i think that's going to prioritize now that you could say after so many news reports came out after people realize they were deporting four hundred thousand people a year is a much larger number isn't even his predecessor and only then did they start

watching it back i mean in reality his policy thus far has been much worse than the conservative president before him but i think that's where you start going to the state level because state level republicans you look at alabama arizona georgia. republicans in these states have passed three i am sorry immigrant laws and as i think at that point you're going to start looking start looking down at typically not just at the g.o.p. presidential candidates it looks like nobody's saying at the state level and if if the state level they're proposing laws like alabama i think that's where the republican party would lose voters now what do you think about the law and the justice department starting to look into other states i mean is this at least a promising sign that you have from a federal level this weary i going towards of this legislation i think it is and i think that what it underscores mostly is that we need we need federal we need federal immigration reform because right now it's states coming up with their own solution that they see that would work best for them and so now utah solution is being challenged by the federal government needs to be able to say this is what you

need to be doing don't pass was extreme was stop trying to act like alabama and do something like this utah at least they added a guest worker program or in alabama admittedly the politicians mayor of said we just don't want to talk about it immigrants we don't care where they go just get him out of our state ok so you if you could have it your way in your ideal perfect world would comprehensive immigration look like on a national scale. i think got to work on that especially for the democratic party needs to figure they need to figure out what they're looking for what i would say is you have the people here they obviously cannot deport all of the millions of undocumented immigrants who live in the u.s. you're talking about too many people amnesty has to be a part of it a guest worker program has to be a part of it for those who do want to call and also you need to start looking at policies like the dream act that you have i've known students who were undocumented immigrants who went to school and got their degrees but now after college they worry that they're going to be deported just for the fact that they want to try to work in the u.s. will there needs to be a program that will get those students on a path to citizenship because it's not their fault that they came to the u.s.

it's children like two year olds and they came to the u.s. they're still undocking because of choices by their parents i mean we need to focus on getting students like that keep them citizenship get them in the u.s. and let them assimilate let them have jobs and be part of our workforce and i think that you know that's every one of the things we need to remind people of is there is no longer is our problem that so many people are trying to cross the border at all times if you look at it since the economy as you know gone and you have fewer people crossing the border now you have the population what is it fourteen fifteen million people yes they're living here that are undocumented but they're here and so now you really have to deal with it but is that the democrats often can't even come up with a comprehensive plan right i mean they're always lacking when it comes to messaging and so they want to blame it on republicans the obama administration surely does as to why comprehensive immigration reform is passed but where is the policies. if you look at the different regions right now you see states that arizona's got their solution but their solutions going to look a lot different than what people in michigan are going to be proposing because and

i think that's the problem that you've got different people looking at it from their own interest of their own states that people are too worried about being able to run for reelection or what are their voters going to say they are about trying to focus on ok what's good for the country as a whole not just this one area of people oh it's about time somebody had that conversation and you know i've already pointed out that once it looks like somebody on the republican party might actually have a heart but it's. good to look into what those policies actually mean of course thanks so much for joining us here. still ahead tonight local police are spotted with military grade equipment at the occupy movements find out how they got their hands on these kinds of supplies and last lines for seem to be the first response for law enforcement during the suppose that's an insight from former seattle police keep your stamper after the break.

there's the police corruption is. what a protester nobody seems to know. but never a pepper spray to face but already argument that they're being overly dramatic. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so easy to understand it and then something else and here's some other part of it and realize that everything is ok. i'm sorry welcome to the big picture.

mr. perhaps the

two plus months of the occupy movement we've documented the growth of this movement the numbers of camps that are popping up the large days of action and the clashes between protesters and police and each week we see an eviction where flash grenades and tear gas are used or new pepper spraying video or peaceful students are sprayed in the face of questions about police actions remain unanswered why of course the first response to peaceful protest lies exercising their first amendment right to speech and assembly i was met with oppression and if police forces i don't learn from the past and that can be ever demilitarize in the future i'll try to get some answers to some peace who's been on that side of the line joining me to discuss it is norm stamper former seattle police chief and author of breaking rank a top cops exposé of the dark side of american policing and i want to thank you so much for joining us tonight and first let's start a little bit with some history with your back story you were of be chief of the seattle police department you were there during the battle for seattle and you know

how did you handle that situation not well we. thought we had play and prepared trained in everything we needed to do in advance of that week this november early part of december nine hundred ninety nine we had eleven months to plan to prepare for and to provide the training state department recommends fourteen months but we still thought we were ready and we simply were not ready for the massive numbers. like localization demonstrators that would show up in our city and we made mistakes i particularly made the biggest mistake of we early in the week which i think actually oh sure in the battle for seattle so what particular lessons can you say that you learned from that experience. number one do not use chemical agents on nonviolent non threatening individuals this

applies across the political spectrum my pain involved in my previous life in the san diego police department for twenty eight years there. and we can try to operation rescue an anti-abortion group who use very similar tactics that were seen with the party namely blocking intersections anally and seeding themselves with law and arms in front of planned parenthood for example and none of those cases in the current occupied scenarios that i've seen. or in previous demonstrations from the sixty's seventy's and eighty's and ninety's have we seen really justification for using those chemical agents do you think of a should ever be he was or just not in cases of peaceful protests you know we also have some people some city officials out there some police departments that save but it doesn't matter if it's peaceful or not if you are blocking an area than some point that is threatening to the police well i think then the police need to really

think through what their role is in an ostensibly free and democratic society we lost sight of that in seattle in the one nine hundred ninety nine and i'm just saddened by the fact that people have not within law enforcement learned that messages of the battle for seattle when you say that it's people within law enforcement that haven't learned the messages do you mean it's those that are on the ground the police that are interacting with these protesters every day or is it those who are at the top is it something about the hierarchical structure and the way that they're trained. yes it is definitely something about the structure american law enforcement is paramilitary in its orientation i think that's a huge mistake there is a need for toughness on occasion there is a need for discipline there's certainly a need for self control and the kind of person what i would call psychological

recently in syria motional hardiness that would allow a police officer to look at another citizen who is demonstrating against his government. and to be sensible in the face of that we have seen i think a tendency on the part of law enforcement in this country to heighten the military response to everything across the board drug war has a huge role to play in that and so too does the what i would consider to be the misguided overreaction to domestic terrorism concerns and you could say to the you know the irony in this movement specifically with occupy last three is that you know to use that their messaging that the police are part of the ninety nine percent they're supposed to be on the same side as the protesters here and yet it seems like they're being treated like enemies why do you think though in that case that more police have broken rank and decided to join up because they

need to keep their jobs. i think that's huge drug security particularly today as it is vitally important i know there are police officers who are very disturbing images that they're seen and then daily newscasts where you also know that the culture of policing is so strong. i mean it gets a grip on you and hold you i mean i remember this distinctly for my very first rookie year as a police officer thinking i'll never behave the way i was criticizing police officers for behaving before i became a cop and within a breath taking the short period of time i was doing the same sorts of things so there's a lot of power in that culture and it takes quite a bit to resist it or do you think that there are still ways to resist there's still a way to change the way that police in this country function to demilitarize them i mean you know i wonder if one of the aspects here is that now they have so many

flashy toys that are handed down to them from the military that their departments buy and when you have now just pepper spray but you also have flash grenades and now you might have a tank by not using might be the mentality i'm guessing. yeah and i think there's a lot of truth to that you know so some people might call them tollways and only when when somebody gets a new toy they want to play with it there's some truth to that but there is also. i think a general commitment in law enforcement to seek and to find alternatives to lethal force remember that pepper spray and tasers and certain other tools at the disposal of the police today were intended to be used as an alternative to shooting and killing someone and now we see pepper spray for example being applied so casually as it was it at u.c. davis and that and that's a very very disturbing that's that's a misuse of the tool to think about like right at the at some point as iraq right

now what you ordered the battle for seattle i think if their story is anything similar to mine they'll believe that what they did was right that it was unpopular they understood that going in but they really didn't have an alternative and i think over time they will come to appreciate the fact that they did have alternatives including patients i mean to use pepper spray on a line of students who are seated generally with their heads bowed. it is absolutely unconscionable and inexcusable and i suspect whether the individual who applied that pepper spray will come to appreciate what he did wrong many many others will and i want to thank you so much for joining us and i guess we wish that they would just rather use those alternatives in the moments rather than think about them later thanks so much thank you. now here on the show we've reported many

stories of police brutality most recently involving the occupy movement and why now there are images from camps across the country showing local law enforcement dressed in riot gear wielding baton armed with cans of pepper spray and they don't hesitate to use those tools so it is aggressive police mentality have anything to do with the weaponry and supplies that they've been given to go to look back in history back in the late one thousand nine hundred along as created barring local police from receiving military equipment or that was overturned in one nine hundred eighty one when the military cooperation with law enforcement act allows the military to give cops access to military grade equipment so in the late ninety's the law enforcement support program was created to accelerate the transfer of these supplies and department of homeland security was created so very grants designed to let police purchase even more makes what exactly are these supplies wildstar the basics here on a typical police officer's belt you'll find a handgun pepper spray canister taser handcuffs and a nightstick over several police stations across the country as well as on some

pretty fancy equipment in minnesota and vermont law enforcement have purchased the bear cat three this is a nine time armored vehicle with bullet resistant windows gun ports curiosity spencer loud speaker and a battering ram on the front bumper and this humvee on steroids has a price tag of two hundred fifty thousand dollars and several departments including the n.y.p.d. are also using mobile watch towers giving cops an eye in the sky and i have seen these in parking lots and they seem like fairly simple items but they're pretty expensive too a price tag range of between ten and one hundred thousand but the montgomery county police in texas well they took it one step further and use a d.n.a. test grants to get their own weaponized drone that's right is three hundred thousand dollars shadow have grown made by vanguard defense industries weighs fifty pounds and could be equipped with a beanbag launcher and a taser giving officers the ability to stop a target from the sky because the name shadow hawks sound familiar that's because they're the same brand that's used by the military in afghanistan for counterterrorism operations out of montgomery county police is promising that they're going to use this unmanned aerial aerial vehicle for much more tain reasons

. we can launch this put it over a fire put it over a hazmat spill put it over a house with a barricaded suspect and literally give the incident commander the ability to look at the entire scene. with a bird's eye view so that's really what is going to be used for fires and why does it come with a bean bag launcher and a taser surely the police are downplaying this investment but looking at all those items i think it's pretty safe to say they're an unnecessary tool for the local police so why do cops need a tank or drone well they don't but if they can get one and they figure why not call me crazy but these devices need to be left to the military for war situations not to use against americans or domestic purposes. now coming up next our sound off on comments from you that i read and we'll take a closer look at last night's g.o.p. debate a graphic.