for now bart word goes unchallenge unchallenged. abc 7 news. >> all right let's go back to the weather and serious storm coming in. spencer is tracking it for us. >> wet weather is here and get whole lot wetter later tonight. especially during the overnight hours. live view from the high definition mount sutro camera out over san francisco. there is many light not measurable but light rainfall in san francisco at this hour. most rainfall at the moment is up in the north bay and moving over towards the east bay as you can see here in the live doppler 7 hd. several locations up in sonoma county and in napa county right now reporting more than 1/10th inch of rainfall. picked up some intensity in the last 2 minute minutes. so we'll see some very intense activity a little bit later. right now the highlights. heavy rain. wind. and possibly thunderstorms will accompany the system overnight. we have a winter storm warning in effect for the sierra and showers possibly continuing into thursday morning. so we have quite a mid week of active we

big vested interested like the energy companies have gone unchallenged while you've been ripped off. so for too long you've been told that the only way our economy can succeed is if we reward not your values but a toletly different set of values. trickle down economics, the triumph of finance over industry. vested interests over the public interest. and who has been rewarded in this economy? take fred goodwin who ran the royal bank of scott lapped. he was at the heart of the banking crisis. compare him to sir john rose, former chief jutive of rolls royce, a great british business leader. [applause] creating wealth and keeping jobs in this couptry, the true face of british business, the vast majority of our businesses that have the right values and do the right thing. rooted in their communities committed to their workforce and creating real lasting value. but at the time of the financial crisis fred goodwin was paid over three times more than sir john rose. i tell you something, conference, fred goodwin shouldn't have gotten that salary and i'll tell you something else, we shouldn't

unchallenged. where nobody can come even close to our level of dominance or love of. food growing oil production. human capital is only one thing and that is the. problems are left to the insiders and the insiders on the whole are committed to the us empire. and to run the world. they want nuclear threats. and so long as the leaders in the us are are to committed to the use of nuclear weapons the rest of the world is going to keep theirs or get their. and the prospects for human survival are not great. and almost shouted again usually in the surging of this university of forty three years. but i believe it was over the shape of the employer the u.c. system and until i bring his promoting weapons for a little activity. i think it's absolutely wrong for any university to be involved in making weapons of mass destruction weapons that are illegal under international law weapons that by any definition of morality are immoral weapons that kill indiscriminately weapons that could destroy civilization ok seriously stop think about our our cards a sedation in fear the liberati

if judges think there unchallengeable, they are corrected. -- de are unchallengeable, they are corrected. whether it is one judge in california who thinks he knows the definition of marriage or one who rules that not only can schoolchildren not say a prayer at their graduation that they cannot use the word " benediction, god" and if they do they will lock up his superintendent. the idea that an american judge becoming a dictator of words is so alien to our traditions and such a violation of our constitution that that particular judge should be removed from office summarily. he warned in 19th century that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. with each passing decade, the judges have become more hostile to the american tradition. the openly talk about using foreign sources of information. the american constitution is so old and antiquated. a justice who believes that should not be serving on the american branch. -- bench. [applause] [applause] we have a very lengthy paper. this outlines how profoundly anti american model is. it is taught in every law school. it is

if she did run, she certainly would not be unchallenged in the democratic party for that race. host: louisiana, steve, joining us on the republican line. good morning. please go ahead. caller: good morning. first of all, mr. simon, you should be a stand-up comic. guest: i do not know if that is good or bad. caller: do you remember a time when the president -- he had both houses of congress a couple of years ago. what was he able to do with it? nothing. he will go down as the worst president that ever led this country. i would propose to you that the tea party -- we are going to get a roundhouse. we are going to knock all of them out in the next election. guest: i appreciate the call. what the president did you, of course, was passed health care, which was -- did do, of course, was pass health care, which was no small thing. we do not know what the supreme court will even allow major parts of it to remain, but, it is a success, it may go down in history with social security and medicare as one of the great social programs in american history. but you mentioned the tea party and

for now, bart's work goes unchallenge. >> and oakland city officials are facing criticism for costs of renovations to the fox theater. according to a report the city portion of the cost quadrupled to $52 million. the audit blames staffers for failing to provide akit kthibility as the cost grew. >> there was a full feesibility said we're going to at the end of the day we're going to have a full renovation with this amount of money well. have these identified funding sourg r sources. >> the city's portion costs skyrocketed 172%. some say the invest smt paying off. >> the audit does conclude it was a fantastic project that the investment made did yield the desired results and in fact, atracked a lot of outside money. >> oakland city staff responded and saying the audit ignores facts provided during the process. >> a professor got quite a phone call this morning. he found out he's the latest winner of the nobel prize for physics. and as wayne freedman reports he's down to earth. if you study hard, and contemplate space and time, maybe you, too will get a reception like the one dr. saul pea

by 1950, unchallenged and unquestioned -- we have the finest higher educatio system on the planet. 60 years later, we still do. other people are working on it, but we still have the best. what happed to change that higher education system between 1910 and 1950? immigration. the higher education system in this country was built on immigration. it was triggered, unfortunately, by adolf hitler. he took power in 1933. he basically destroyed the german university system, which was unchallend at that time, the best university system in the world. he ran off that talent. because talent family. it is tough to move factories real people get on airplanes. at that time, on boats. and most of the german professors and many of the students went to britain and increasingly to the united states. among other things, that won the war could imagine the manhattan project without jewish scientists could imagine even worse, manhattan project with those jewish scientists working on the bone. that would not have been a good outcome all over europe, both sides, brainpower started moving, mostly at that point

because they have a bottom less well of funding, thanks to the forced deuce racket that has gone unchallengedis country, they don't care. they are going to throw everything at the wall, three all of this money down a sinkhole, and they know that sometimes it will work. of course, the intimidation and the thug tactics that we saw in wisconsin were just a warmup. but i think a lot of these unions, particular the service employees international union, afl-cio, which has poured $1 million into this astroturf front group we are ohio, slash, we are one there this ohio are putting all are of their rank and file on the ground there. they are squeezing deuce out of a lot of members who disagree, not only with their tactics, but with their ideology. you interviewed a member of the ohio education association, a teacher named jay thompson, earlier this year who blew the whistle on how her union, the oea, the ohio education union, was using her own deuce to campaign against her husband, who happened to be a republican state legislation candidate who agreed with the need for this kind of reform. they are w

and he couldn't let that go unchallenged. >> reporter: but in jakarta, as so often before, the questionre to look for dennis standefer? police thought they would start in the antique district of jakarta. karl and his home video camera went along. and it turned out that, yes. a lot of dealers in this part of town were quite familiar with an american named dennis. >> dennis, no title. just nickname. dennis. >> reporter: they knew him only as dennis. karl says he recognized that as an old standefer trick, one that had already led to many dead ends in karl's hunt. never give out any personal details. >> he's very suspicious. he won't give out any information about himself. they didn't even know his last name. >> reporter: and maybe this is just another dead end. as police listened in, an antique dealer phoned this dennis. and the two of them had a conversation in indonesian. as far as karl knew, dennis standefer didn't speak a word of indonesian. >> so, i couldn't believe it was dennis he was talking to. >> reporter: you thought maybe you had the wrong guy. >> i wasn't sure. i said you're s

standing, then the actions by the government arguably is in violation of the cost, simply will go unchallenged. the arizona case said taxpayers -- made an attempt to distinguish it. unless you have the facts itself, it is doubtful whether you would be able to challenge any action of the government as a violation of the establishment clause if you are merely a citizen, a taxpayer. what is the content of the establishment clause? has changed. it was once thought there was a wall of separation between church and state. it was best for the state and for the church if each tended to its own house and the government stayed out of the any intermingling with religious organizations. there is, frankly, a different notion that the current majority of the court has, and that is, there is no wall of separation, but there is a rule of nondiscrimination, that is, in a tuition case, if you are going to give money for scholarships to catholic schools, equally, you must give money to jewish schools. the notion is lots of room for accommodation and the prohibition is favoring one religion over others. that is t

. >> let's talk about the unchallenged democratic candidate and the jobs bill.rned away by the senate. marty, i'll continue with you, what does this mean and the work ahead for the white house? >> i think there are some key parts that everybody has voted for in the past. i think what's going to happen probably, they'll probably break it up and put it in different pieces and move different pieces of legislation. i agree with bob, if you take $42 billion out of social security, i think that's a huge mistake. i think it's something that has to be revisited. i believe that, when bob and i were in congress, wherever there was an emergency, no paying for it. we're in serious trouble. in the short-term, maybe we have to do spending to create jobs. but in the long-term, we have to fix that problem. so i think what's happening now, all the osseterrity has lost jobs. i think we'll get something done, but i think the american people are frustrated over the fact this should be the number one priority, and we can't get it moving. >> what do you think, bob? >> i think marty i

and unchallenged by the fact that homeownership has been part of our national agenda with purpose since our first breath. thomas jefferson started with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. but when you step back, and even after all the market corrections, the numbers suggest the average family that owns has become a net worth of $180,000, and the average family that rents house as a family net worth of $4600. we believe that self-reliance and homeownership are woven together and should remain national priorities. we are frustrated by the fact that so many of the policies that are being engaged here in d.c. are corrosive to that confidence and the ability. i wore a tie today that is shards of glass. sometimes i feel like i have shards of glass in the housing industry, that we need to carefully pick up and re- pieced together so that families can see a light and see a future. i'm frustrated by the fact that my children and my grandchildren do not have the confidence of the future that i enjoyed. because homeownership is so much a part of that purpose and that agenda. i'm also very

. -- go unchallenged. the arizona case said taxpayers cannot sue.stinguish it so that unless you have bd the cla, you would be unable to challenge any action of government as a violation of the establishment clause if you are merely a citizen taxpayer. what is the content of the establishment clause? has changed. it was once thought that there was a wall of separation between church and state. there is a different notion that the current majority of the court has. .here is no war of separation/ in the tuition case, if you are going to give money for scholarships to catholic schools, you must give money to jewish schools equally. the notion is that the prohibition is on favoring one religion over another. that is the current debate. what does the establishment clause mean? does it mean stay out of church affairs? does it mean the state can give money to religion and support religion as long as you do so without preferring one religion over others? >> that is a dramatic shift from understanding the establishment clause when i was in law school. >> the

we allow taxpayer standing, then the government arguably in violation of the cause says to go unchallenged. and the arizona case said taxpayers needed to an attempt to distinguish it said that unless you have the facts themselves, it's doubtful whether you'll be able to challenge any action of government is a violation of the establishment clause if you're merely a citizen taxpaying. what is the content of the establishment clause? has changed, it was once thought there was a wall of separation between church and state, that it was best for the state and that's for the church is each tended to its own house in the government stayed out and the internet going with religious organizations. there is frankly a different notion that the current maturity of the court has and that is there is no wall of separation, but there is a rule of nondiscrimination. that is in the tuition case, if you're going to give money for scholarships to catholic schools, equally you must give money to jewish schools. the notion is lots of room for accommodation of religious beliefs and the prohibition is on favoring

we allow taxpayer standing, then the government arguably in violation of the cause says to go unchallenged. and the arizona case said taxpayers needed to an attempt to distinguish it said that unless you have the facts themselves, it's doubtful whether you'll be able to challenge any action of government is a violation of the establishment clause if you're establs he ctent oaxpaying. got back back back. and .. the church is each tended to its own house in the government stayed out and the internet going with religious organizations. there is frankly a different notion that the current maturity of the court has and that is there is no wall of separation, but there is a rule of nondiscrimination. that is in the tuition case, if you're going to give money for scholarships to cathol >> and the prohibition is onef favoring one religion over others.h that is the current debate what has it cost me? that means you stay out of church affairs more you can support religion as long as you do so without referring one religion over others. >> that is a dramatic shift from the understanding of the establ

if she did run, she certainly would not be unchallenged in the democratic party for that race.t: louisiana, steve, joining us on the republican line. good morning. please go ahead. caller: good morning. first of all, mr. simon, you should be a stand-up comic. guest: i do not know if that is good or bad. caller: do you remember a time when the president -- he had both houses of congress a couple of years ago. what was he able to do with it? nothing. he will go down as the worst president that ever led this country. i would propose to you that the tea party -- we are going to get a roundhouse. we are going to knock all of them out in the next election. guest: i appreciate the call. what the president did you, of course, was passed health care, which was -- did do, of course, was pass health care, which was no small thing. we do not know what the supreme court will even allow major parts of it to remain, but, it is a success, it may go down in history with social security and medicare as one of the great social programs in american history. but you mentioned the tea party and tea

by one of the great crossroads and it's definitely dangerous because it judges think they are unchallengeable inevitably corrupted, corrupted in a moral sense. i mean taking money, but in a sense of arrogance, a sense of imposing on the rest of us in the weather is one judge in california deciding he knows more than 8 million californians about the definition of marriage -- [applause] whether the judge in san antonio a few rules that not only can schoolchildren not say a prayer at their graduation, they cannot use the word benediction. they cannot use the word invocation. they cannot use the word god arrest the audience to stand in if they do these things, he will block a new superintendent. not the idea of an american judge becoming a big tater of words is so alien to our traditions in such a violation of our constitution as i will explain in a moment that that particular judge should be removed from office summarily. [cheers and applause] lord acton warned in the 19th century the power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. notice he dropped the word tents. in the course o

marriage together to preserve this article of faith, because it is the foundation stone of the unchallenged greatest nation in the world and in all of western civilization. [applause] and to give you a little bit of encouragement. they weren't irgnornt about this a hundred years ago. i looked up a case, it was maynard v. hill. they is said -- said it was the foundation of society. supreme court, 1888. well, 110 years later i found myself in the iowa senate and our iowa marriage laws were under risk from the litigation that started in hawaii and sweeping across the land. many of you remember those battles that we had. >> well hear argument first this morning, maples versus thomas -- >> we are having some technical problems with our signal from the values voter summit. we are working on the problem and hope to have it resolved shortly. >> again, woven countered some technical problems with our coverage this afternoon of the values voter summit in washington. we hope to have it resolved shortly. we were taping it just as well, so we will have it later in the program schedule. in the meantime w

principle which i believe is widely respected in our country, and it really is one that i think is unchallenged. most of the challenges which have come to the power of the presidency in regard to the most recent conflicts have been pretty much peripheral challenges, challenges about the way in which we would handle detainees and challenges about the rights of individuals who have been participants in an assault on the united states or on the liberties which we cherish. but they haven't been, no one stands to say the president of the united states doesn't have the authority or power to defend the interests of the united states, nor should they. that's an appropriate consensus, and we can rejoice in it. i would raise a couple of items which i think are worthy of our discussion though as we seek to provide a solid basis upon which the executive branch can effectively defend the liberties and freedoms of the people of the united states. as i mentioned earlier, the statement of charles evans hughes it occurs to me signals that the president can do what is necessary. and this is an implied not only p

you see, if judges think they are unchallenged, they are corrupted in a moral sense, in a sense of arrogance on imposing on the rest of us. whether it's one judge in california deciding he knows more than about 8 million californians about the definition of marriage -- [applause] whether the judge in san antonio who rules that not only can school children not say a prayer at their graduation, they cannot use the word "benediction" "invocation" "god," or ask the audience to stand, and if they do any of this, he will lock up the superintendent. the idea of an american judge being a dictator of words is so alien to our traditions and such a violation to our constitution as i will explain in a moment that that particular judge should be removed from office supremacy -- summarily. [applause] lord acton warned in the 19th century that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. notice he dropped the word "tense". the courts have proven he's right. with each passing decade, the judges have been more hostile to the american tradition. they talk about using foreign sources of infor