johnson the development director for american atheists. well the war on drugs seen as a failure a south american countries blame u.s. drug policies for fueling cartel violence but for some industries the war on drugs is a profitable business as the battle to crack down on minor drug offenses rages on some companies are cashing in and getting rich and if it's these companies that pump enormous amounts of money and to lobbying congress so that drug policies continue to work and their favor so who's benefiting contractors the government spent over six billion on private contractors between two thousand and five and two thousand now i am. not all the drug testing industry is another one that's cashing in the alcohol industry private prisons and drug rehabs are all reeling in the dough overthe the war on drugs so who is really benefiting from the war on drugs and will the us change its failed policies to discuss this earlier i was joined like riggs is an associate editor reason magazine and i asked him where the billions of dollars allocated to

and eighty johnson the rector development director of american atheists. i don't believe so we've had in integral amount of religion in politics since our founding fathers who are a mix of agnostic judeo christian natural law common law and put that all together and then you fast forward to a brief historical context to the west few decades on both sides of the moral majority on the right in the eighty's to even transcending from a war time in some scandal environment clinton use it embrace religion even more than w. in the southern strategy of what he used and then you came through this current kick where we face issues like partial birth abortion defense of marriage act. catholics and what they're dealing with with the health care bill and there are a lot of religious issues whether right or wrong better an integral part of the american political process right now a.j. what do you think about that how much it would you say religion dictates today the political discussion i mean as you just mentioned contraception gay marriage a lot of these social issues

based on their values, leadership ability and faith but could we or dare i say could american voters support an atheist president? that's my talk back question today. could america elect a nonchristian president? >>> graphic testimony in john edwards' corruption trial. his former aide talking about the ex-candidate's secret life and his affair. the defense taking a shot at andrew young today. >>> new threats against senator marco rubio. serious enough to police to give him extra protection in florida and washington. we'll talk to the reporter that broke that story. we're back after a quick break. for a hot dog cart. my mother said, "well, maybe we ought to buy this hot dog cart and set it up someplace." so my parents went to bank of america. they met with the branch manager and they said, "look, we've got this little hot dog cart, and it's on a really good corner. let's see if we can buy the property." and the branch manager said, "all right, i will take a chance with the two of you." and we've been loyal to bank of america for the last 71 years. [ female announcer ] new aveeno skin strengthening body

they are my age, they will be in a secular atheist country potentially one dominated by radicalists and with no understanding what it meant to be an american you go. that's all. but throughout it all gingrich really was about big ideas, right? many of which seemed to combine his wide array of interests like space and infrastructure. >> by the end of my second term -- [ applause ] -- we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be american. [ applause ] >> of course there was mail tracking and illegal immigration. >> one of my proposals is very simple. we send a package to every person who is here illegally. when it's delivered, we pull it up, we know exact ly where they are. it's on the computer. >> recently it's been about guns and foreign relations. >> as president i would propose that the united states submit a treaty that says that the right to bear arms is a universal human right, and that every human being on the planet should have the right to bear arms. >> he really said that. then there was guns and the environment, by the way. >> you can't put a gun rack in a volt. so let's be clear what this election is all abou

atheist. >> i am jewish. >> i am a mormon. >> no matter who we are, where we come from, or what faith we have, we are americans. >> the establishment and exercise clauses make it to the religious liberty clauses. >> we shall make no prohibiting the exercise thereof. >> but what does it really mean? >> the establishment clause is basically about no establishment. we would not set up an official state religion. and the free exercise clause is about individual being able to freely exercise their beliefs. >> the establishing clauses there to protect division of government, and government from religion. >> is religion from state, but not religion from politics and public life. it keeps the government from taking sides on religion. it is meant to be neutral on religions and non religion. >> this keeps government neutral to all religions. it is meant to protect the rights of religious and non- religious people. >> religious individuals and groups, like non-religious individuals and groups, have the right to debate in all issues that are important in political and civil life. >> people have the right to practice their faith, to follow thei

american politics. polls show that 46% of voters would be reluctant to vote for a muslim candidate. so instead of calling barack obama a muslim mitt romney is now calling him an atheist. >> i think there is a desire to establish a religion in america known as secularism. and i know that based upon reports the obama administration gave this a lot of thought, a lot of discussion. >> so having failed to make barack obama a muslim, republicans led now by mitt romney are hell-bent on making him an atheist, and here's why. in the politics of religion in this country, the only thing that's worse than being a mormon or a muslim in the eyes of our extremely religiously intolerant electorate is being an atheist. >>> new developments tonight in the killing of tray john martin. one lawyer is not enough nor george zimmerman. now he has two. engining the zimmerman defense time is hal you hrig. a criminal defense attorney who did the local coverage of of the casey anthony trial. he's a former florida police officer and former florida assistant attorney general. he joined greg sonner who has been representing george zimmerman without met his client. craig sonner is the lawyer who fl

example is that we don't have one on record atheist in all of congress so not just in the executive branch but in the legislative branch and, you know, the american -- americans are sort of known especially compared to western europe to be exceptionally religious. i mean, 8 in 10 americans identify with some religion or other. there's a growing segment of the population that does not affiliate but still, less than 20% that doesn't affiliate with any particular religion and so, you know, again, and we ask people directly about it and they tell us 2/3 say it's very important to me that a president has strong religious beliefs. host: looking at this "usa today," this is a piece that came out of a couple of days ago. the nominations are a losing ground, most religious traditions lost members or barely kept pace from 1990 to 2008 while the u.s. population actually grew. and it shows a decrease in the practice of different denominations. how is that reflected or not reflected in what americans want from candidates? guest: yeah. well, this is really driven by younger americans. what we see is that younger americans are far more likely not only than olde

atheist. >> i am jewish. >> i am a mormon. >> no matter who we are, where we come from, or what faith we have, we are americans. >> the establishment and exercise clauses make it to the religious liberty clauses. >> we shall make no prohibiting the exercise thereof. >> but what does it really mean? >> the establishment clause is basically about no establishment. we would not set up an official state religion. and the free exercise clause is about individual being able to freely exercise their beliefs. >> the establishing clauses there to protect division of government, and government from religion. >> is religion from state, but not religion from politics and public life. it keeps the government from taking sides on religion. it is meant to be neutral on religions and non religion. >> this keeps government neutral to all religions. it is meant to protect the rights of religious and non- religious people. >> religious individuals and groups, like non-religious individuals and groups, have the right to debate in all issues that are important in political and civil life. >> people have the right to practice their faith, to follow thei