live from moscow this is r t it's ten thirty pm these are all top stories with me kevin no internet muscular anders breivik tries to defend his sanity to give credence to his murderous extremism with his anti islamic ideology may have taken root elsewhere in europe. a lie detector test clears russian m.p. under a look of boy of the poisoning and murder of alexander litvinenko while the former security officer father hints he knows who the real killer is. to gas rains down on bahrain's anti-government protesters western governments keep quiet prompting accusations of selective support for arab uprisings. and syrian border guards reportedly repelled qatar and saudi backed extremists trying to

infiltrate the country from iraq as the peace envoy sprang from calls for an expansion of the u.n. monitoring force. now back to washington d.c. studios in the alone to show just a few moments. with . its technology innovations all the developments from around russia we've got the future covered. ok for show and tell on tonight's program last week we told you that the cia is trying to expand their drone war capabilities in yemen they have to launch future strikes without knowing who their targets might even be but want to know if you thought the signature of france writes can be considered a terror tactic it's got a producer patrice in ascending to find out what she had to say. i'm of the streets of d.c. to tell people in the nation's capital what our viewers had to say on twitter

facebook and you tube and see which comments we should keep or delete. from. the cia wants to launch drone strikes in yemen based on suspicious behavior without really knowing the identity of the target so could this be considered a terror tactic on a reader response from oars and on you tube he said drone attacks are a terrorist act they demolish buildings kill people indiscriminately and are operated in secret pretty much the same thing as a terrorist attack if you want to keep that comment or delete or keep it so they all think yeah i can keep it. because the thing that you need to have a hundred percent evidence of times do you want to keep that or delete it. delete that we're trying to keep the terrorists out so it's not it's not the same as a terrorist strike what if it drones were used based only on suspicious behavior i'm sure there are people. competent enough to determine that and b.

would i trust them enough to to make compton decision under read your response from don on you tube he told us the only people terrorized by drones are terrorists the u.s. uses their own says stop terrorism not participate in it so what do you think you drones only stop terrorism or can they be a part of the problem well it's going to increase tensions but they've taken out quite a few terrorists already with drones so the cia does their homework pretty good on that an unmanned an unmanned aircraft sitting down to bomb a no one targets. these people see it as an act of terrorism but many people we spoke with support using drone strikes on terrorist suspects launching drone strikes based on suspicious behavior seems like it's a conversation up for debate but. now as always we appreciate your responses and here's our next question for you just before the break we told you about the case of francis grady. man of trying to burn down a planned parenthood in wisconsin and while he's facing jail time he's not being

charged with domestic terrorism we've seen people get that charge just for translating documents online so is there a double standard on what counts as domestic terrorism what is don't you think on facebook twitter and you tube and the responses just might make it on air. well so secret of the culture war is alive and well here in the u.s. we've seen it waged on a mass scale by the religious right this year in the debate over contraception to the slew of restrictive legislation on abortion it's making its way through state legislatures while the religious right will point to their bible to the bible and their ideology over social issues like abortion and gay marriage something that doesn't square up in the pairing of those views with fiscal conservatism just last week we saw that play out the debate between paul ryan and the catholic bishops over his budget a budget the push is austerity not on the defense department of course but on to social programs but one has to really be a good christian our viewers like ryan when it comes to social spending

hypocritical and what they make of how our friends across the pond approach this or earlier i caught up with david sirota talk radio host and author of that to our future how the one nine hundred eighty s. explain the world we live in now now david wrote about this topic last week specifically referring to a new report that was published in the u.k. that looked at religion and political views and participation so i first asked them to tell us more about that report. what they found in britain is that the more religious you are the more likely you are to be caressed well at the center who believe in the need for equality believe in the need for tolerance when it comes to issues of immigration in other words what i found is that in the united kingdom as opposed to the united states the more you so identify as religious the more you actually follow in your political beliefs the economic word of the five so how is that then i mean obviously they're different countries right you can expect everything to be the same but how is it that they're so completely opposite because

often you do find this correlation between somebody who is socially conservative and then fiscally conservative as well. in the united states it's actually true i don't you has done studies polls have come out showing for really for dad. now the more religious you are the more you tend to be economically conservative not just conservative on social issues and you're right britain in the united states are not the same but i think that what the british report highlights is that american politics and politics in the industrialized world doesn't have to have hypocrisy embedded at the place where religion and politics intersect that there can be an economic politics that is risky because expressive of the economic doctrines in the bible and let's remember the doctrines in the christian bible on economics are quite progressive and you want to read the sermon on the mount speech knows that

it's kind of ridiculous to claim that the christian bible inspired any economically conservative position well so that you know that's interesting too because as i mentioned last week we saw this isn't the first time that we've seen it happen when there's a republican budget that's proposed that ends up slashing a lot of social programs programs like medicaid or welfare and food stamps and what not and so last week we saw this play out between paul ryan and the catholic bishops but we've also heard certain ways around this from paul ryan even some religious guess that they host on fox news so let me play you a clip then i want to get your response. when we say something like the importance of taking care of the poor the importance of taking care of the least of these that there's also this other other element of personal responsibility and making sure higher level of government doesn't our society does not do what an a lower level of government or society can do for itself there's got to be this balance here those principles are very very important and the preferential option

for the poor which is one of the primary tenants of catholic social teaching means don't keep people poor don't make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck in their station in life help people get out of poverty and a life of independence. so what do you think about that justification well i mean my reaction first and foremost is that cutting somebody off of food stamps is not a way of them of out of poverty so that's the first thing the idea that the paul ryan budget or that mitt romney's budget proposals are aimed at eliminating poverty and getting people out of poverty is preposterous making somebody more hungry millions of many not be able to afford their health insurance their publicly subsidized health insurance is not a way to end their poverty it's simply a way frankly in my estimation to get more money to give to the very wealthy in this in this country my my larger critique would be this that we have to remember the historical context of all this the intersection of politics and religion in the

united states for most of our history was an intersection where the catholic teaching for instance where the christian bible is teachings on an economics were represented on the progress of the cross of gold speech for william jennings bryan for instance the famous example also of course martin luther king who comes out of the religious world his poor people's campaign to try to end poverty so we have to remember that what you see expressed by paul ryan is is a modern i guess i would call interpretation i would also probably call it a distortion of what the bible as. actually teaches so how do we get there right how did that become the modern interpretation because you could say in many respects to the what we see with you know the religious right nowadays especially with younger population is that when it comes to social issues like gay marriage for example they're moving towards a more in oprah progressive stance in terms of becoming more accepting of it so how

is that what is the fiscal conservatism now that the modern way of looking at it well i think i think part of the way that's happened is that you have it a situation where religion has become a political brand and not necessarily something represented by whether people are actually reading the canon there was a recent study out just a couple months ago that found even in america people who actually have read the bible tend to be more progressive than those who haven't read the bible that's different than calling yourself religious a lot of people can call themselves religious and really have not much of an idea of what the religion in question actually teaches the other part of it i think is that look you have a well founded conservative movement that has tried to create what is an unholy alliance between working class people and the very rich and the people who have created that that on the whole the alliance has used religion have manipulated religion to try to force that on the unholy alliance together the good news is that

generational polling tells us that the new younger people today even younger evangelicals are necessarily buying that the best way to pursue the word of god if you were god that is far more progressive on economics is somehow to embrace conservative economics i mean yes one of the things when you think about it and you look at it it seems so obvious that there is that hypocrisy there but it's important to keep talking about it right otherwise they can try to cover it up and david thanks so much for joining us absolutely thank you. let's take one more quick break but when we come back full time tonight involves phone companies being too busy helping law enforcement infringe on your privacy to protect your privacy and then add the our new clothing like the patent and start of the right path. wealthy british style.

markets why not come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike stronger for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars a report on our. line. would be soon which brightened if you knew all about someone from phones to impressions. please from stunts on t.v. don't come.

all right it's time for tonight's tool time award and tonight we're giving a collective honor to cell phone providers say the jobless show we spoke about or ever expanding surveillance state and this story falls right into that that c.t.a. the wireless organization is the cell phone industry's trade group and its volved in state bill fourteen thirty four it's called the california location privacy bill now proposed by state senator mike leno this bill would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant from a judge before getting their hands on a phone location information and also require phone providers to disclose why they're sharing that information and how often they're giving it to the police how personally i commend this that are there for this proposal after all bullies are using mobile data is their number one tool in tracking down individuals and just last year a cato's julian sanchez discussed how police managed to bypass the fourth amendment to obtain whatever data about you that they can. and it's actually an interesting

kind of a way of doing a little weird end run around the fourth amendment because the fourth element doesn't protect in the same way information that is stored by a third party like a telecom so they have this kind of clever two step they couldn't get this information from you directly without a full blown search warrant but they can say well first of third party has to collect it and i want a third party has collected it your fourth amendment privacy interests diminish and then they can get it with a lesser process. so as you can see law enforcement is learning how valuable cell phone companies really are kind of like the way the bush administration and use the telecoms to wiretap and then gave them legal immunity from prosecution but anyway in this case the companies really seem to feel the same love the way that the police in fact ellis association whose members include spring. all sent a letter to leno explaining why they opposed the location privacy bill and it turns out of the organization not only finds it to be a burden to disclose how and why they're sharing location with data with cops but

they also claim that would be expensive to compile that data and it might create confusion for providers so ladies and gentlemen protecting your constitutional right is just too much of a burden for these cell phone companies just let that one sink in and as if those reasons are inferior adding enough listen the house and its argument every iterates these are reporting mandates would undo all the burden wireless providers and their employees who are working day and night to assist law enforcement to ensure the public safety and to save lives so not only have they said they were growing them financially apparently emotionally to have to be honest about how often they're giving up your data but they're also just admitting that they work day and night with law enforcement so like they're giving up their data all the time is that why would be so burdensome and expensive because there's so much of this going on with them as well as come out and say that protecting their customers privacy is not a priority hell it's not even an interest but hello this is

a constitutional issue we have warrants for a reason i love to see how one of these companies would respond if the cops showed up at their door without a warrant now it's not entirely the same obviously but i think you get the point it's disgusting to see a total lack of interest in protecting their customers but overall their financial argument also doesn't make sense so according to see t.i.a. it would be expensive to put together all this data about how often why the police are requesting the information because a.c.l.u. and thena pointed out the info the privacy bill would request is already put together it wouldn't require any extra work from the companies and so why is that information already available you might be asking well because the company sent a bill to the cops every single time they come begging for that location data on the color pointed out those location data requests they don't come cheap and the companies want to make. where they're giving accurate invoices to law enforcement there's even an example and this one actually shows how he charges one hundred dollars to activate the service and then twenty five dollars

a day for their assistants so it's pretty clear that the t.i.a. wants to protect all the extra money coming in first up on providers after all it's a nice perk to the business but it completely violates the unspoken understanding itself and providers should be working for law enforcement they should be working for you with the customer right and with law enforcement when it's within the law but once again this is all part of our growing surveillance tech state one it's been expanding since september eleventh for national security comes of for personal privacy and where the constitution has been shredded into a million little pieces they are the fear that they peddle about needing to be able to gather anything they want on any given day but this california bill is trying to put an end to that trend and completely stop police from using mobile data to their advantage it would at least give customers peace of mind the cops would have to go about it the right way by obtaining a warrant but in the eyes of the c.g.i. this would keep the phone companies and law enforcement from being best buddies and they definitely don't want that to happen so for arguing against the rights of

consumers encouraging the continuing police practice of obtaining location data without warrants seat cia and their member companies are tonight's tool time or winter. ok time for happy hour and joining me this evening lauren lyster host of the capital account here in our t. and medicine money roll calls heard on the hill reporter and though the lady is. all the rage these days i mean ever it's either the latino vote or it's the female vote and now everyone is talking about the youth vote. if you wish numbers suggest that young voters those eighteen to twenty nine year olds are more likely to stay home in the fold rather than help real work president obama's with the white house sending some of the biggest names down here to n.c. central to help recapture some of that magic from two thousand and eight. it's

right above us try to recapture the magic mitt romney is trying to tell people the young young people that the reason you're unemployed is they go obama's so bad so you should vote for me but the whole thing about the youth vote right so in two thousand and eight what they said basically was that young people came out of the historic numbers to vote for obama and he did win young people by thirty four points but new research from tufts university points out that it wasn't all that historic in terms of the numbers forty eight point five percent of citizens eighteen to twenty four voted in two thousand and eight seems like a lot but in two thousand and four it's forty six point seven percent in one thousand nine hundred to forty eight point six percent in one nine hundred seventy to fifty one or fifty two point one percent so we're not young people aren't actually coming out to vote but they are compared to the slackers in gen x. during the late nine. zero one i wanted to find out what you like and. what i mean that was the core alexion writes about the nader is everybody i

remember and in college everyone was all excited about nader most of the people seemed to be like super jazzed about it i had friends like really politically aware active friends that decided very clearly to vote for nader knowing that their vote would wouldn't go to these other people and yet the perot you know you have a series of kind of like broken up elections i think. and but i also think that this idea that they use vote is something that capture the youth if there are more active or less active than ever before i feel like that's used every election and i'm sure if you go back to the one nine hundred thirty if people are still saying this is the most active or the least unfortunate kind of sad like the only thing that's consistent about the youth vote is that young people. basically just don't usually come out and vote for people that wouldn't work with younger. or young people who haven't had formed in the young people haven't had enough policies affect their lives yet to be like truly understanding or angry about the situation that their end would be my argument but also i think that this whole you know

obsession with the youth vote from candidates might not be so youth driven like the whole student loan thing in the student loan interest rates whole lot of that affects middle class parents everywhere how many parents saddled with their students debts i think that my dad is still paying a student loan debt. and i would also argue that people don't realize how annoying you have your student loan move into your three jobs and that's and you're still not getting the reasons that you need to and you're trying to you know i mean life changes you make different and so i have a feeling that the people who really care about that are people in their thirty's late twenty's thirty's or the middle that are you know you still dealing with. the people that are actually getting the experience. like ten twelve years of university student loans are as we want to our next one which you know kind of a happy story i guess you could say there's going to be a ballot initiative in california and november that has to do with the death penalty. supporters turned in some eight hundred thousand signatures to the

elections department state wide open just qualify the death penalty measure for the november ballot they say stringency prison for life which. will save the state millions of dollars. so that when they were still gathering the signatures now it's on the ballot november sixth we're going to vote for it but i mean the kind of sad thing is that you have to sell this as it's going to save you a lot of money hey we should abolish the death penalty because we should be killing people especially when we can always prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty well what i thought was amazing that it was it's what one hundred thirty eight million dollars to keep them to keep the seven hundred people that are on death row on death row but the ones that have been executed which is not that many i forget the number maybe that you like tens in the tens that it was four billion dollars so i mean i think for a state like california to make the economic argument broke right is actually

really important i think that will probably have more chance of working out unfortunately because of the moral argument and not one. on the other hand connecticut only had what it only has eleven people on death row who unfortunately are still going to be on death row even though that was repealed way earlier this week or last week or something but they don't have that same kind of economic need and yet it's happening so i think that that's something that should be really looked at as a friend or there is there is some kind of trend going to just say one thing though that i fully support this because i am completely opposed to the death penalty for reasons like you mentioned so many miscarriages of justice that i'm sorry but the death penalty is by no way applied properly because there are wrongful convictions but i mean i think it's a little bit odd that the matters of life and death go to a vote because of how much it's we're going into these ballot measures that aren't really what they seem to be i mean yes on eight in calif. was very confusing to

voters because you were voting actually against gay marriage but yes on eight and all of their marketing made it seem like oh i'm voting for what people were confused and so life and death matters being put to a ballot vote for me just seems very but that's that's the problem with the system the you know that california. and other reason alet initiative is that you get some crazy stuff going on there and so then you have to try to beg people to not have the government kill people anymore or just say like it'll save you money because it was you know do you believe in death penalty they'd probably say yes anyway the next one here which is basically if you are a gun owner and you know you have a permit to carry concealed weapon there is some new style and swag out there for you take a look. so brian miller woolridge series tactical that's the company and so those were the

chief that he was showing off which cost sixty five dollars and they say for the fashion aware gun owner no no there are pleats just say no to please young men men across this world listen to me and know clearly what i think is funny is this is being billed as a covert fashion which is just too funny because yes it is covert fashion. because no i don't. i think that's a really good point i think we got a call up brian over you know it's really intel the clearly you didn't get a female perspective here if you actually want to make the guys look good while they're carrying a concealed weapon it's not just them it's a burgeoning business according to that story said it's under armor too everybody's trying to take the bull market in concealed weapons permits this is like the male equivalent of the female paint gun like the little lipstick gun that you saw in like the old nor movie is now that was sexy i mean not that guns are. you know.

you're going to get more than it out now there's a little pink every they're still very hot pink guns that they made you know those little hot pink pepper sprays and right and everything. i guess i'd like to see some more of his clothing you know please. help but it's a little peculiar to say our girls thanks for joining me tonight thank you that's it but a night show thank you for tuning in ad there for the you come back tomorrow where you're speaking about arizona as the ten seventy go into the supreme court and meantime don't forget making a fan of the a lot of still on facebook and a policy on twitter if you missed any of tonight's show or any other nights you can always catch youtube dot com slash the launch show and coming up next is the news.

wealthy british style. time. markets why not come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with max kaiser for a no holds barred look at the global financial.