u.s. senate hearings for president obama's pick to be the new chief of the cia have wrapped up. by protesters over his controversial part of america's drone program. anti-government protests turned into violent clashes with police. blocking the prime minister's plan to form a coalition government. down to the next winter olympics begins it's exactly one year. winter games that promises to be the most unique and most expensive in history. but not everyone is. president

over. sacks a key figure behind the two thousand and fourteen olympic games. thomas my colleague will be in the chair next hour taking you through to then we have tom hartman and the big picture thanks for watching. log on to washington d.c. and here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture. and the american public in congress beginning to understand this nation's full use of drones is the drone program in for a major change now the secret's out also after coming under enormous pressure from

religious groups the boy scouts of america have decided to delay their vote on allowing gays to be members of the organization and scouts even have the right to openly discriminate and later in the show we'll have a your take my take a live segment your chance to call in and ask a question or make a comment live on the air. you need to know this given the choice between supporting the president or supporting the nation's constitution the constitution comes first in fact the president's oath of office requires him to put a first two it's interesting to watch how the democratic party and supporters of president obama have been split apart by the release of his policies and legal rationales for killing american citizens among others drones without the due process protections of the right to a trial by jury of your peers guaranteed in the constitution on one side and those

who argue that we're at war and therefore americans have joined the others saw it are now enemy combatants and should be treated like any other dangerous enemy during time of war they should be killed this is the george w. bush argument the strength of it is the memory of nine eleven. and the enduring believe in the minds of many americans that nine eleven was an act of war in and of itself a modern day pearl harbor and therefore we're justified in pursuing that war until the enemy al qaeda is either dead or surrenders the first weakness of that argument however is that our constitution and the law that we've signed on to through numerous un and other treaties very clearly describes what a war is and what it isn't and how it's different from what you would call a crime pearl harbor had japan a country nine eleven had been ladan a criminal for a war we need a congressional declaration of war a nation declare that war against once that's happened there are very specific

rules under which we conduct that war last time our nation had a congressional declaration of war legally invoking our constitutional war powers was in one hundred forty one and that war ended forty five which strengthens the argument the nine eleven was a crime not an act of war an argument that many democrats were making when bush was president that's that argument is supported by the way by our having arrested and now having on trial nine eleven mastermind khalid shaikh muhammad and are having executed it's funder osama bin laden and are putting others on trial for their participation in or support of nine eleven which highlights the second weakness of the obama is fighting a war argument for democrats it's a naked continuation of the policies of george w. bush which so many consider both the illegal immoral and fundamentally inconsistent with american and by the way international principles of governance and morality.

on the other side of this introduction credit party argument or those who say that obama is both the president and the head of the democratic party and as such deserve support of democrats and people who lean toward the democratic party that was the rationale used by many republicans who privately opposed many of george w. bush's policies particularly his drunken sailor spending policies and his war policies but kept their mouths shut until a democrat came into the white house and then they could start screaming about deficits so today and simplified form many democrats and democratic party supporters are faced with a pretty stark choice on this issue of using drones to kill american citizens without trial something that our democratic president has done three times that judge jury executioner you support your party and its leader right or wrong. or do you support the constitution. now for more on this i want to bring in mike papen tony attorney and host of ring of fire radio mike welcome back. great john

ball crazy john ball below the top of the u.n. building off john ball says that this is consistent that the obama policy is a good thing and that it's been a consistent extension of the bush policies shouldn't john bolton support of it scare the hell out of the rest of us karl rove's support of that yesterday so that's really no surprise i think the reason that this is going down so easy for so many americans why you have americans say of course we just need to use drones at every chance we get to assassinate people is because the rest of the story hasn't been thought out how do we prevent terror groups or drug cartels or insane misfits from using drones against the united states on united states soil drones in enemy hands are going to be the headlines and how they attacked the u.s. with those drones that's going to be the headlines in about two years because the arms industrial complex will never pass up the opportunity to sell their two foot

long you know three pound killing machines to saudi princes who are then going to deliver them to the same kind of saudi terrorist freaks who bombed the twin twin towers so it's almost like we're saying this is happening over there in there's been no discussion even the media is not asking the question are congressmen are not asking the questions you've got america's largest weapons manufacturer going to be looking for new and bigger more creative arms sales opportunities because the military budgets getting ready to be cut so they're going to look at places like asia in middle east and africa and they're going to sell more drone than they can produce and for us to think that some cat sitting three miles off shore in a boat. can't deliver or first of all can't get his hands on one of these drones when you have you've got raytheon and northrop and boeing selling them to beat the

band is ridiculous but the question is not even be imposed tom but it's not just going to be raytheon and north of graham and making them miss is like the a k forty seven you know the collision of cough it was no it wasn't made in the united states it's like this this is happening all over the world my my other concern beyond that is the legal precedent that we're establishing as arguably the most powerful nation in the world certainly the largest you know militarily what happens and therefore as the one who seems to be defining international norms and laws what happens when mexico decides to send armed drones over phoenix looking for mexican drug lords who are mexican nationals or when china decides to send armed drones over san francisco or d.c. to take out chinese dissidents or a random size to go after the virus makers that took down their centrifuges and discovers that they're living in manhattan or iceland decides to go after banks i

mean are we supposed to just sit around and quietly watch as entire city blocks of blown up in the united states and innocent civilians are killed because it's the logical continuation of a policy that we started there are no rules of the road here right now to understand that we have the disc in this discussion there are zero rules of the road the f.a.a. has been pressured by this administration to push through the right to use drones for everybody for example a corporation can own a drone and they can spy on activists they can spy on labor they can spy on competitors paparazzi tom can use a drone and park it in your backyard if they want for four days because there are no rules here and this president has failed to talk about it because he's so he's so hypnotized. by the military industrial complex he's so hypnotized by the idea that the only way we can make america secure is with drones and so as we see

problems elevating the parts of the country and as we see our iraq are on the on the ground occupation diminishing around the around the world what we're going to see is we're going to see the use of drones more and more now you asked the question about the constitutional issue there is no fourth amendment consideration has been thrown out the door fourteenth amendment out the door fifth amendment out the door in this thing that they call the authorization for use of military force is a joke it was almost like they were it was written by a cabal of tenth graders who never took a civics class to understand that there's something fundamental about things like the fourth the minute the fifth amendment the fourteenth amendment so that's where we are and we have a president and if democrats don't have enough damn sense to criticize this president about where this is headed then we are a lost party tom whelan and that's the obvious question is why are so many democrats you know actually not even let me do the not even phrase as

a question just like to get your thoughts on it i've been watching this on my own message boards of tom arbonne dot com over democratic underground some of the more prominent in the message boards where where democrats and progressives you know are debating these issues and there is clearly a faction of he's my president and i support him even if i disagree with his policies others who are saying hey you know we got to keep ourselves safe and then others saying the best way to support a president is to call him out when he's wrong and help him make it right i mean you know what are your thoughts on this kind of party warfare i get i get e-mails from these dimwits every day every time i go on the air and i say you know obama can do better we can we can be better we can have better moral highground we can do things like go after wall street you can be a president that leads this country instead of reacting to everything that happens . among his close circle listen this. if you listen closely in the next few weeks you're going to hear them talking about two cases that they feel justifies

everything they're doing one is hamdan versus rumsfeld the other was ham i think it's hamdi versus rumsfeld both of those cases stand for the proposition that at best that that millet militants don't deserve all the due process than an american citizen deserves that doesn't give us the right to go kill him though there is nothing that gives this president the right to go kill americans on foreign soil the authorization for military for use of military force is almost a joke if you look at it it's so a loser e. that says any high level official is that the president is that the cia director is that a political advisor can go after anyone an american citizen a political militant want any foreign soil is that mexico is it canada hell it could be texas or mississippi for all i know is long as there are in imminent threat no definition to any of this stuff at all and they talk about these things

called the law of war principles have you looked at that what is it necessity proportionality distinction and humanity then it's a joke that listen what anybody who's gone to law school would look at that entire bill and say it's a loser or a garbage it's a loser a garbled up language and this president is a constitutional law professor and he knows what the flaws are but he says i'm going to buy into the military complex anyway because he just like he did on wall street have got thirty seconds to you do you see a change and if so what he thinks going to bring it up. i don't see any change listen i don't see any change until we find some cat right across the border of mexico that takes one of these three pound bombs as you as you point out takes one of these drones and it lands on american soil and kills american citizens because americans. never look at it like it's about them i'm not going to be affected by this this doesn't affect me it's just over there in the desert seven eight hundred

seventy eight thousand miles away from here so that's that's the true reality here and i think you've nailed it mike papen tonio as always thank you thank you. coming up caving to pressure from various religious groups and organizations especially the mormons the boy scouts of america to late it's a vote yesterday to allow gays to openly serve as scouts and leaders do the scouts have the right to openly discriminate and deny gays from a part of the organization. technology innovation all the developments around russia. the future coverage.

the news today violence has once again flared up. these are the images the world has been seeing on the streets of canada. showing up for asians to rule the day. in screw news so much for the boy scouts honor in the twenty first century

a vote on wednesday to allow gays to openly serve as scouts and leaders was delayed under pressure from religious groups and anti-gay voices within the scouts response the founder of the organization scouts for equality said the boy scouts quote caved to those who argue that their ideas about homosexuality trump basic scouting values of kindness courtesy and bravery and quote in a super bowl saturday interview president obama urged the boy scouts to welcome gays into their organization. my attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life and. you know the scouts are a great institution that are promoting young people and exposing them to you know opportunities and leadership that you know will serve people for the rest of their lives and i think that nobody should be barred for that but with

wednesday's delayed vote it's likely to be an uphill battle for equality within the boy scouts joining me now is someone who thinks that's perfectly ok horace cooper conservative commentator and senior fellow at the national center for public policy research for us welcome back thanks very much on how is this not a civil rights issue well it clearly isn't a civil rights issue of the supreme court has already weighed in on this this is a right of association issue the supreme court had weighed in on civil rights issues back in let's say dred scott i mean just because the supreme court hasn't caught up with the times doesn't mean it's not real what's i mean i'm not absolutely there's always a supreme how is this not a civil rights issue this is a fundamental issue of the right of association a fundamental issue or are you going to go now to the catholic church and tell them that they're going to have to have women ordained every private organization has a fundamental right this whole american experiment is based on these ideas that

there's a private sector and a public so you're saying that the boy scouts should be allowed to discriminate against gays for example as well as blacks the boy scouts absolutely ought to be able to set whatever limits they want to have a mirabelli if they want to exclude african-americans it's not about a problem it's the question of what's the fundamental right when you decide that this cause is ok to breach the fundamental right then someone else will come along and they'll decide for another reason pride. clubs every group even the home you're fundamentally allowed to decide who you want to associate with and who you don't regardless of race gender religion absolutely that's what the whole private sector is about and i'm going to tell you something when i look at this i see bullying taking place picking on this organization and saying you know what we've got to burn the village down this is a perfect example of we've got to burn the village down to save it some two and

a half million young boys benefit from this about forty percent of them black and latino instead of offering a competing alternative that gays or any other groups can participate in and try to draw those people away the desire here like there was is to persecute it comes just as simple as a straw man not i don't know that there was a time when the boy scouts did not allow blacks into the boy scouts i will read and the force of law was brought to them and they changed their policies absolutely not that's false it is not true that the boy scouts have been force advice and it might well but but but right across the board private organisations nazzaro cannot discriminate i start a race that is false you are misstating the law in america today i can have any association group that i'd like to and i can exclude on the basis of race i can exclude on the basis of gender i can exclude on the basis of age i am allowed right now in america under the law to be able to do that to take this right away from the

boy scouts threatens every single other groups rights to be able to do this and the point here is this was tried in philadelphia this was tried in chicago this was tried in san francisco what happens is that the pressure groups force the cities to withdraw their support from these organizations groups right now find themselves if they don't get this said to support they close their doors but if. well if they do get for if they do get the city support then those anti-discrimination laws they have to operate under they may have to it's very simple you may have to the question so easy argument you're making is backwards horace you're saying they're totally private organizations therefore they can discriminate on the basis of race or gender or sexual preference bought you know they really get hurt because they're not totally private organizations because they take money from the city or the state they're supported by the city or the state parks and usually you can't have me both ways noto this is another example of how you progressives take liberty away

from people and then use the example of that by having the city hall and if you support the way you have them the city of philadelphia supports the boy scouts is because the city of philadelphia doesn't have the funds to try to do it directly that's the same with milwaukee and you think the boys are though philadelphia the way scouts know you know the boy scouts are providing a service that the cities and a lot of jurisdictions value they don't have the resources to duplicate that one studies they audit over exam and i just an emanation doesn't come into play so why would it be i mean that's what a nation the courts have not ruled that way actually there are still there is a government body has evolved philadelphia lost in jersey lost san francisco lost that's actually not the case ok so let's let's assume for a moment that your argument legally is right is a morally wrong it is not morally wrong for an organization to decide who it wants to have its members it's a question of it will i join a group or will you join a group if you don't approve of the membership requirements that they have that but

we absolutely shouldn't have it's for other groups been forced to do this thanks for having thanks thanks for your perspective will be back. in about as the rest of the news just when you thought the right to war on women was over it's not republicans in michigan and it has to bill this week that would have required all went. to undergo highly invasive and potentially painful transvaginal ultrasounds before obtaining an abortion and if this bill sounds familiar it should it's because republicans across the u.s. introduced dozens of similar bills less cheer during the height of the right's war on women that were aimed at influencing women's decisions on abortions the republican party has since sworn to reclaim the female vote and to become more female friendly bill in michigan was shut down earlier today by that state's

speaker of the house the fact of the matter is that michigan republicans still tried to limit the rights of women when it comes to making their own health decisions so republicans in the great lakes state not get the memo about winning over the female vote or is the war on women still alive and well joining me now for more on this is sam bennett president and c.e.o. the woman's campaign fund and she should run sam walker back the program my pleasure john thanks for joining us sam this bill may have been shot down today in michigan but you know what's going on in that state and this is a state i was born and grew up and i'm just astounded this is what's going on in that state that it even got to to to the point where it could be taken down. well you wonder how we got from right to work right to this day i think clearly it's almost as if the sharks mill the blood in the water right they got right to work ramrod it through and now they're looking to accomplish other pieces of what's

clearly a long term strategy. to accomplish some long term agendas and clearly restricting women's access to reproductive choices and options even though the past election right showed that to be an electorally. unwise move the women at the snake she stood up and were counted in this past election cycle where clearly they've got a little list tom and they're going down the list. right to work researching reproductive choices and options lord only knows what's next of obviously restricting the right of people to vote changing the way we count the electoral college reducing taxes on corporations and billionaires you know throwing throwing a bone to the gun industry and but back to the war on women there was a general sense and i think we're seeing a little mini war going on in the republican party right now between the the karl rove let's go back to republican principles they don't want to go back to the

eisenhower principles he was in favor of unions and things but but you know at least not the tea party you know the anti tea party and the tea party and and yet it seems to me that both the tea party republicans and the regular good old fashioned kind of sean hannity republicans or whatever you call them that they're all you know part of this war on women and they decided that that wasn't going to help them out and yet they're still doing it i thought i don't get it. this is just built into the republican party well i think massaging me in truth is built into our culture let's not beat around the bush on that one but i think you know you get in the habit of reflexively doing something and you keep doing it you know there's been a long stretch where candidates both democratic and republican have been making hay on restricting women's access to reproductive choices and options and but i think

this past election cycle. not just women tom but the general election electorate put a line in the sand and said ok enough enough knock it off. but i think you know they're just in the habit of doing this even though it's politically damning for them my whole if they keep going in this direction is the ground work is going to be laid for the upcoming congressional cycle again. quite frankly for there to be more seats gained by women and more seats again by folks that are going to support those issues that are very important to women and who knows maybe even laying the groundwork for a very powerful twenty sixteen election if they can't break these bad habits of going down dark alleys where they're going to get beat up by the electorate and they are. sam just a very in just ten seconds or do you see this issue as energizing younger women. i think the results speak for it actually if we look at the outcomes of the past

election cycle in two thousand and twelve that's exactly the pattern we saw we also saw a pattern of moderate republican and clearly for obama to have the win that he did claire mccaskill right and joe donnelly to have those wins what you had was a parallel phenomenon of republicans saying enough is enough and not voting party line it's great sam thanks again for being with us and my solution tom thanks. crazy alert this sunday is the fifty fifth annual grammy awards and the network broadcasts in them c.b.s. is a little concerned about the attire that some of the celebrities may choose to wear so that network sent out a memo which got leaked of course specifically identifying what should and should

not be seen on camera let's just say c.b.s. was very specific for example on ice covered up but is ok but if the quote bare fleshy under curves of the body. and but a crowd are showing that it's a big no no and why showing a little side boob is fine and dandy but if they're to bare and if the under curvature of the bras is popping out there might be a problem and finally celebrities who cover up their private parts will be on the a list but those who choose to show visible puffy bare skin exposure of their genitals will make network executives a little gasp but fear not c.b.s. because we're at the big picture at the mall with the perfect outfit for grammy attendees to wear and it's sure to end all your worries i give you twenty thirteen official grammy awards and he kept.

wealthy british style. three.