Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

tv   Stossel  FOX Business  September 17, 2016 1:00am-2:01am EDT

1:00 am
>> health care is a right of all people. john: it is? is for educational sore right in childcare, housing, cell phones? what are your rights? the founder said life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. they later added freedom of speech religion the right to bear arms protection from unreasonable searches. the founders wanted protections from power politicians. recent edit checks and balances to the constitution. presidents can create laws unless congress approves them.
1:01 am
>> executive action. >> executive order. >> i will go as far as i can come even beyond president obama john: will the supreme court keep these wannabes dictators in check? who will be on the supreme court? >> this president predicts five supreme court justices. john: that will shake policy for decades. are your rights at risk? that's our show, tonight. >> and now, john stossel. john: our rights are at risk. it's partly because the two leading presidential candidates both want to take away some of your rights and also because many americans are confused about what they write is. bernie sanders said things like this. >> health care is a right of all people. john: it's a right, health care? he also said education, decent housing and childcare our
1:02 am
rights. politicians around the world agree. u.n. bureaucrats claim plot to things or human rights. protection from unemployment, rest and leisure, food, clothing, housing, necessary social services, free education and periodic holidays with pay. those are human rights? i guess mark zuckerberg abe lincoln and thomas edison, they were deprived of basic human rights. bernie sanders and the u.n. busybodies are wrong. health care, housing and food are not the kinds of rights america's founders wrote about it because he to give one person for housing or education you have to take money from somebody else. that's a violation of those people's rights. in our bill of rights every single right is a right not to be meddled with. in other words a right to be free from government, the right not to have your speech abridged or your religion band. that's a big difference from the
1:03 am
un's rights or bernie's are hillary's. they would take other people's stuff and give it to people they say deserve it more. but at least the rights the founders care the most about it have often been protected by the supreme court when politicians try to go too far. but will they in the future? donald trump says, that's why you have got to elect me. >> this president predicts five supreme court justices. if hillary clinton gets in she is now so far left that we are never going to have a country again. john: while the next president will appoint scalley as replacement and five judges are more than 65 years old with mate mate -- stephen breyer 78 so what's going to happen? let's ask senior judicial analyst judge andrew napolitano. >> i think they are both likely to pick people whose views would favor the expansion of the government.
1:04 am
john: i'm surprised that this guy obama proposed merrick garland. he has described in the media says popular centrist and yet he is centrist left and right but he is anti-libertarian. he always sides with the government, every single case in which he ruled as a federal appellate judge because we did the research, he has sided with the government. often democratic nominees side with individual liberty when it comes to the fourth amendment, search and seizure. this is a democratic nominee who always, underscore the word john sides side with the police and the government. on twitter and facebook i asked you what rights do you fear the next rights will take away candy posted both presidential candidates have no respect for freedom of speech. the first amendment would be gutted. >> i do not think that any significant change will come about during the presidency of donald trump or hillary clinton with respect to freedom of speech.
1:05 am
i do not understand your viewers apprehension but i would suggest on that line, not on the other spot on that can relax. john: look at the candidates. hillary once tried to ban to be a game sales to minors. they both talked about cutting off parts of the internet. they both want to ban flagburning. >> remember the supreme court can only hear cases that are properly before it. there are no cases before the supreme court right now in which any of those traditional first amendment liberties are likely to be overturned. john: good. here is one thing hillary clinton told the democratic convention that she wants her supreme court pick. >> expand voting rights, not restrict them. john: and you are for that? >> i'm for the right of people to vote. i am not in requirements at the ballot box. but i'm also not in favor of voting fraud. she is saying you shouldn't have
1:06 am
too have a photo i.d.. >> the requirement for photo i.d.s has an effect on people in inner city who don't have driver's licenses than the laws unconstitutional. i don't accept that but that's what the law is and this court is uniformly enforced it. john: in this time i have to show a photo i.d. to buy a cold pill and you have to you have to have to drive, to fly in to get food stamps. doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to asks for to prevent voter fraud. >> on this you and i are in the same page but the court has so elevated the right to vote that you can barely ask the person's name. >> here's something else that the new supreme court may rule on. this year president obama's attorney general made this announcement. >> today we are filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state of north carolina. this section is about a great deal more than bathrooms. john: more than bathrooms but they are going to reach from washington to every bathroom.
1:07 am
>> show me where the right to use the bathroom is a federally protected right. it's a property right and it should be determined by whoever owns, leases and manages or controls a property and the federal government should have nothing to do with it. john: on facebook tasha moore writes she worries clinton and trump will try to use the court to widen government spying eye on private citizens. the scary part is average people will be convinced it's okay and it's the right thing to do. >> this i am terrified about. we are one vote away from unleashing the nsa to more unbridled spying than we now have. john: why are you terrified? is much less intrusive than being stopped at the airport. most of her information is out there anyway. it's true they can't prove they have stop anything from what they have done so far but it's logical to think gathering this data might stop the people who want to kill us. >> except it doesn't work.
1:08 am
when people are afraid it's human nature to opt for safety rather than freedom. should the government be able to listen to every phonecall and knock on every door and arrest anybody it wants? who would want to live in that environment? john: that's much more intrusive than gathering information quietly. >> when the government gathers information about acid knows too much about us and it chills our being and it deters us from being free and happy people. john: do you worry more about the clinton court or a trump court? >> i worry equally john. john: will it be the difference? >> there's very little difference between the two. john: trump has his list of people who sound pretty good. >> air for the most part with the exception of one of them big government republicans who would almost always side with the government on issues like surveillance and with the federal government in its disputes with the state. john: thank you judge andrew napolitano.
1:09 am
if americans have rights i would think one right is the freedom of association which means a right not to do business with people. a couple asked the colorado avery owner jack phillips to design a wedding cake for them. >> jacket was declined saying he has no problem selling premade cakes but he couldn't do a wedding cake due to his deeply held religious beliefs. the couple complained arguing they had been discriminated against. the state civil rights commission agreed and ordered phillips not only to make cakes for same-sex celebrations but to reeducate his staff about colorado's antidiscrimination act and to make quarterly compliance reports to confirm he has not turned away customers. john: he has to file compliance reports. this reeks of totalitarianism. it's his private business. some bakers and photographers have been put out of business by these antidiscrimination laws but they are necessary so democratic consultant jessica --
1:10 am
it's an intrusion into it privacy. >> no it's not. at ensuring that people get equal protection under the law. john: there are other bakers around. >> absolutely and that has become the greatest counter case to this is to say very few towns will only have one baker. the point is the slippery slope argument here. it's not that they are conveying support for same-sex marriage. they are just abiding by the law so yes i understand that i feel for him but we have to treat people equally in this country. john: so should the black student association have to take whites and should the women's club have to take man? should the jewish baker have to put a swastika on a nazi k.? >> as a jewish person i would want to make a swastika cake. yes, you would have to. john: is a good thing? >> is a good thing we treat everyone equally?
1:11 am
we can't make exceptions for people who treat others unfairly on the basis of race gender sexual orientation. john: let's go into one other area that you and i will disagree, the hobby lobby case. he was 5-4 so this could change with the next court. the court says this company did not have to offer insurance. >> the issue there again is the slippery slope. there was another case that showed the slippery slope where a company privately-owned, family owned not only did not want to provide contraception or abortion related services but they also want to restrict counseling. they didn't want women to talk to their doctors about their reproductive choices on their health insurance. come on. john: this is where you and the left drive me crazy. they didn't want to restrict it, they didn't want to pay for it. a person was free to get counseling. >> if you have health care why should your health care cover all aspects of your help claire claire -- care? that saying our reproductive --
1:12 am
is not part of health care which is categorically wrong. john: it doesn't carry your toothpaste or your toothpaste. >> people go to the doctor for all sorts of reasons. i have to go annually and i will have to go regularly for a mammogram when i'm older. those are things that women need to ensure that we are healthy and have a long life. we have a different set of stuff. we have got to go more. john: in the hobby lobby case it'd want to pay for birth control for women. and that's their belief. why not say okay i will pay for it myself? >> some people don't have the money and under the equal protection clause -- john: we went to walmart and they cost $10, $9.99. >> what's your point? it is a right now to have that. john: it's what the law says and we have to obey. >> yeah, think so.
1:13 am
john: what if the congress agrees with a president trump and he says everybody has to dye their hair orange. >> i really don't think that's the same thing. i take your point and it's important we have these debates but at the end of the day the supreme court is there as a national referee and it's important the supreme court has the ability to set a standard of civility for the nation. we need to make life as easy as possible for people and that's the job of government to alleviate our anxieties and to make sure that every person has the right we are constitutionally guaranteed. john: the governments job is to leave us alone and keep a safe. >> we have different definitions. john: thank you jessica dicarlo. coming up more arguments about guns come again empower and did you know that president obama has been overturned by the supreme court 9-0 more than any other president? will that change next term? i doubt it is both leading candidates are eager to overreach.
1:14 am
>> another great thing about executive orders i don't have to go back to congress.
1:15 am
1:16 am
1:17 am
♪ (ee-e-e-oh-mum-oh-weh) (hush my darling...) (don't fear my darling...) (the lion sleeps tonight.) (hush my darling...) man snoring (don't fear my darling...) (the lion sleeps tonight.) woman snoring take the roar out of snore. yet another innovation only at a sleep number store. ♪
1:18 am
♪ john: even nbc clueless comedy writers realize something is happening with president obama's executive orders. the presence that i will get benefits like social security to some illegal immigrants and even the writers understood that's not normally the way laws are made. legislation is congress's job at the president was doing something different. >> there's an easier way to get things done around here. it's called an executive order. john: lost every president who issues executive orders that they are not legal if they are just a way to get around congress and that's pretty much the case with president obama's orders. ♪ [laughter]
1:19 am
>> wait a second, don't you have to go to congress at some point? >> that's adorable. you still think that the government works. john: is how government ought to work. there are three branches of government and all must agree before prison gets to impose force on us but often that's not what our president says. >> i have got a pen and i have got a phone and i can use that 10 to sign executive orders. john: are likely next president said she too is going to ignore congress. >> if congress won't ask i will ask the treasury department to use its regulatory authority if that is what it takes. [applause] john: they applaud. people like that. said -- they say that's how things get done. >> there is -- when congress won't act the president gets the powers clause in the constitution. john: but there's gridlock.
1:20 am
>> it's a feature. the founding system was not to make government more efficient. it was meant to pass policies that had a large agreement that sustained across time. john: and don't infringe upon our rights. >> they were concerned about charity. john: president obama has made two executive orders so far but president bush at the end of his term had more and if we are many more. >> he issued executive orders that executive orders as a saturday night live clips that can just. in the part. john: obama is bigger. if donald trump wins in november it's not like the constitution will suddenly be respected. trump promised to impose the death penalty on anyone who kills a police officer and of course he said this about supporting illegal immigrants. >> day one i first our in office those people are gone. [applause] john mackey say one of those is
1:21 am
okay and legal. >> well the president can reallocate resources and priorities for immigration deportation as he wants. john: it's already illegal to be here illegally. >> that's right and just like the police chief says that go after murders raben jaywalkers the president says we will spend more money and resources on deportation. the executive does not command judges let alone in the state courts where the vast number of death penalties are given. john: three years before president obama issued his immigration executive order he spoke at the la raza conference force a member asked why they just legalize us? >> that's not how our system works. that is not how our democracy functions. >> i went to chicago law school and he was teaching there and he'd knew what they president
1:22 am
propose to do. the opposite of what donald trump proposes. he issued a exit border in the supreme court stopped it. takes a lot to change a lot. here are an affirmative legal status temporarily that triggers all of these benefits, that's what caused the lawsuit. john: it takes a lot to change a lot meaning the congress has to pass a law. the president can't just say let's do this. >> the president has discretion over priorities who to go after rather than someone else and allocate resources to the northern rather than the southern border and things like that. john: the supreme court rejected the executive order but it was closed so let's say hillary is elected and she gets to appoint and she says. >> if we cannot get comprehensive immigration rep warm as we need and as we should then i will go as far as i can,
1:23 am
even beyond president obama. john: beyond president obama. >> what she means is to give temporary legal status to everyone here regardless of whether you have a child or what have you. that's astonishing lead alone say giving a permanent status. john: the what she said sounds good to people. they applaud and she goes on to say we need to make sure law-abiding decent hard-working people are not ripped away from their families. >> i agree is a matter policy but when you look at the executive actions many times you have to think what if my biggest enemy was in the white house and have this power? what i want sarah palin donald trump hillary clinton bernie sanders, whoever your worst political nightmare might be would you want them to have this awesome power? john: they were elected. >> they were but the purpose of our courts is to check abusive come he can't just have 50% plus one the boat to kill somebody or violate somebody's rights. john: thank you ilya shapiro of
1:24 am
a cato institute. next. >> more handguns in the district of columbia will only lead to more handgun violence. when the supreme court forced washington d.c. to end its ban on handguns, what happened and what will happen to gun rights if hillary's elected? (announcer vo) who says your desk phone
1:25 am
always has to be at your desk? now, with one talk from verizon... hi, pete. i'm glad you called. (announcer vo) all your phones can work together on one number. you can move calls between phones, so conversations can go where you go. take your time. i'm not going anywhere. (announcer vo) and when you're not available, one talk helps find the right person who is. hi, john. (announcer vo) so wherever work takes you, you can put your customers first. introducing one talk-- another way verizon connects your business better. learn how at onetalk.com.
1:26 am
1:27 am
1:28 am
john: eight years ago the supreme court ruled narrowly 5-4 vote the 2nd amendment the right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals, not just militias. while would happen if hillary clinton gets to appoint to elect a supreme court justice or maybe five justices? publicly she said she supports the 2nd amendment but we know what she really plans because a private fund-raiser she was
1:29 am
recorded saying this. >> the supreme court is wrong on the 2nd amendment radio host dana bash follows gun rights closely. hillary said she supports the 2nd amendment. i suppose she means you have to join a militia. >> yeah well thanks for having me. that soundbite that you just played where she thought she was protected by the privacy of a private fund-raiser, that's her first goal if she were get to the white house is to overturn heller. on the word militia i think back to what george mason who was one of the founders, he had said i asked where the militia, this is a direct quote and he said it's the whole of the people so back in the day when we had our founders who are laying the groundwork for national rights getting governments recognize them for militias every man and woman. there've been so many attempts to bastardize the meaning that they have been six -- so far unacceptable. our rights become anachronistic
1:30 am
overtime hold no water. john: but for justices to the opposite side and among the five, one is gone. >> you are absolutely right and i think that's the biggest threat to looking at a possible hillary clinton supreme court. john: in the least audio from the hillary clinton fund-raiser hillary also said this. >> the ideas you could have been open carry permit with an ak-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of the supermarket is just despicable. john: concealed carry could go but i will push back at you. why do people need to be able to carry ak-47s in the aisles of the supermarket? >> i don't know anybody that carries an ak-47 in the iowa supermarket. you have to get your local sheriff to sign off on it and you have to go through these government loopholes. you have to jump through all these loops and get a special license. she is conflating a fully
1:31 am
automatic firearm at the semi-automatic firearm. it's very difficult. nobody goes into supermarket with an ak-47. nobody commits crimes with fully loaded firearms. john i was just in the supermarket the other day picking up dish detergent and i had my glock 19 on my hip concealed carry. i have never taken an ak-47 and that i live in texas. we have open carry and we have concealed carry and everyone says when the open carry was passed in texas, it's going to be violent chaos. it didn't happen. there was no chaos. the claims they have made about this are wholly unsupported. john: will the court be different if trump is the president? >> i don't know. i have work i hope with trump
1:32 am
and his supreme court than i do hillary clinton. we could see concealing carry go away. with the other candidate we have a hope that won't happen so you have total knowledge on one hand and the hope that the worst won't happen with the other. john: you referred to heller. heller was the decision in washington d.c. where the supreme court said washington had to get rid of its laws that made it impossible for people to get handguns. the mayor said people will die. >> more handguns in the district of columbia will only lead to more handgun violence. john: but there have been less. there were 185 murders in 2008 when that happened, 109 last year. >> the interesting thing about this crimes committed with illegally used firearms dropped more than just non-firearm use crimes which i thought was an interesting statistic.
1:33 am
when you look at every single instance where this is taking place, crime drops. john: thank you dana loesch. coming up these protesters want more financial regulation. will the supreme court give it to them? ♪ i'm going to make this as simple as possible for you. you can go ahead and stick with that complicated credit card that limits where you earn bonus cash back. or... you can get the quicksilver card from capital one. quicksilver earns you unlimited 1.5% cash back on ev-e-ry purchase, ev-e-ry-where. i shouldn't have to ask. what's in your wallet? it's a very specific moment, the launch window. we have to be very precise. if we're not ready when the planets are perfectly aligned, that's it. we need really tight temperature controls. engineering, aerodynamics- a split second too long could mean scrapping it all and starting over.
1:34 am
propulsion, structural analysis- maple bourbon caramel. that's what we're working on right now. from design through production, siemens technology helps manufacturers meet critical deadlines. i think this'll be our biggest flavor yet. when you only have one shot, you need a whole lot of ingenuity. thwow, it's nice.ew 2016 chevy malibu. let's check it out. do any of you have kids? i do yes. this car has a feature built in called teen driver technology, which lets parent's see how their teens are driving. oh, that's smart. it even mutes the radio until the seat belt is fastened. will it keep track of how many boys get it in the car? (laughter) cause that could be useful. this is ahead of what my audi has for sure. wish my beamer had that. i didn't even know that technology existed. i'm not in the market for a car but now i may be.
1:35 am
1:36 am
1:37 am
[chanting] john: remember them, the occupy wall street protesters? when the housing bubble burst the protesters said the crash could have been prevented if financial regulation marks a week. alexis goldstein participate in those protests and wants more financial regulation. a book called over positive which says less relations
1:38 am
better. chair do you say that to people and they say without these rules business would crush the little people. spare us critics are living in the old economy. they think consumers have no power. what's happening with social media and the internet is consumers have power to hold companies accountable so human government is not doing the regulating, consumers can keep distances in line. john: all right let's take the financial sector where you have big banks and little people and you argue you've got to have more regulation. >> there were a ton of specs taken by the regulators leading up to the financial crisis to loosen the rules to say that banks can start to interfere and nonbanking activities like buying oil or buying up aluminum miller coors came and tested -- testified before the senate and said beer drinkers and people who drink soda were paying up to $3 billion more because banks like goldman sachs were interfering with the woman in
1:39 am
market and these are the rules that regulators relaxed in the lead-up to the crisis. john: chaired what about this? >> there was no widespread deregulation. wall street is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the united states. john: it's much more regulated now. >> regulators have a one track mind. they are looking at what they perceive to be violations when ready consumers are happy with the products they are getting. john: not always. >> sometimes consumers are unhappy but that thankfully webby of the market and we would love competitors to meet consumers needs but an unfortunate side effect of regulation it hits the small guys the most. look you at jpmorgan chase's ceo jamie dimon said about that frank. it's an 848 page bill. john: i've got it here. >> with all the regulations and came after if we have -- regulations. john: there are more regulations on top of that. this pile behind me by the way
1:40 am
is federal regulations in general, 175,000 pages, states and local governments do even more. you say dodd-frank is just a good start. >> that's right and it's important that first of all people like to pull hold that up. john: how do you stay in business if you have to obey all of this? >> you look at just the text of the rule it shorter and i used to work on wall street in least to have to give a. >> of papers to our investors to explain the product we sold to them because they were so complicated. wall street is good at coming up with really complicated products and that's part of the reason the regulations are long. the complicated industry and wall street likes the engineers way around the world. if you have to be thoughtful about the way you regulate that's what comes into the bill. john: what is the head of jpmorgan say? >> we talked to an investors about dodd-frank he said it would create a bigger moat
1:41 am
around jp morgan's business. john: big-company say protects us, we can handle it. >> they sure lobbied a lot to get rid of it and got it its absolute and true. all the major banks are part of trade associations which everyday are pounding down the door of congress asking them -- john: the consumer protection might get crushed. >> the vast majority of dodd-frank rules. john: there are a lot of rules that don't apply to the little guy that exempted. >> i think in certain cases yes. community banks are often smaller so they don't do the kinds of complicated financial transactions of the larger banks do so we don't need rules about them trading crazy derivatives if they don't trade crazy derivatives. john: think about the unintended consequences. in france there are twice as many businesses with 49 employees as with 50. what this says is to expand.
1:42 am
>> i think france is one example but in the united states people want to have safeguards. just like you don't want to drive down the street that doesn't have the speed limit. you don't want to drive drive without speed up on sanika want to have your river full of toys in. you don't want to drink full of lead. john: jared give us last word. >> you have congress pass the laws where they have a goal like clean air or leadfree paint and then they give it to regulators in a few decades later these regulators will take the law and apply to something that was never congress's intent. so we have regulators running wild right now. john: thank you jared iyer and alexis goldstein. next what will the supreme court do about donald trump's tendency to grab other people's property? you are pulling these people out. >> excuse me that's wrong. youth using the word bali is really unfair.
1:43 am
1:44 am
1:45 am
♪ (ee-e-e-oh-mum-oh-weh) (hush my darling...) (don't fear my darling...) (the lion sleeps tonight.) (hush my darling...) man snoring (don't fear my darling...) (the lion sleeps tonight.) woman snoring take the roar out of snore. yet another innovation only at a sleep number store.
1:46 am
john: government officials like most people like money but unlike most people, government officials are in the kidney position to take money because they can use force.
1:47 am
listen to this new mexico prosecutor when he thought he was a speaking tour friendly audience. he jokes about how the police always tried wrap good cars. >> there was a stakeout at a stakeout at the bar and this guy drives up in the 2008 verse 80s, brand-new, just so beautiful and the cops weren't a cover and thought -- john: what's wrong with that? >> what is wrong is forfeiture gives police -- john: what is forfeiture? >> forfeitures a sneaky trick where government can take your property because they think the property has been involved in a crime that they don't have to convict you or even charged with a crime. john: in albuquerque they have seized 8300 cars so you have got to wonder if they are excited over the mercedes. are they just looking for cars
1:48 am
to use on control -- patrol? >> they are looking for cars to sell to make money and they can fund all kinds of things like salaries, trips and jackets. john: the cops say we are taking cars from criminals. >> if they were charging people with crimes and convict in them and taking their property that's one thing but they are taking property that gives police the incentive to police for-profit and not for public safety. but the police say is we have taken your car may be her cars worth 5000 maybe it's worth 10,000 how about we sell it and we will split it with you or you will get a lawyer and you try to fight us to get it back it for most people they can't do that. john: let's consider that the case where government grabs your property. >> imminent domain is an absolute necessity for our country. john: eminent domain is the law that lets government decide the people need your property and it can be useful. it's allowed en route roads and hospitals but it gives a lot of
1:49 am
power to politicians. they get to decide what your property is worth. in donald trump's casino payday trump wanted more space for limos outside of his casino so he got new jersey officials to use eminent domain. he had the right to take this ladies home to build a limo parking lot. at the time i confronted him about that. you are holding these people out. >> excuse me that's wrong. you're using the word holy john is very unfair. this is a government case. this is not donald trump. john: it's you and your cronies in government working together. >> to be calling good public servants cronies. john: that's not what's happening? >> that's not what's happening and it's a. sick assumption and. jaded of you to make it. john: in the old days the developers came with guns and thugs and now you use lawyers
1:50 am
and force people out. >> excuse me maybe people use thugs today. i don't. i have done this very nicely. john mackey did it very nicely and legally. >> you did it legally entered new jersey law but we went to court and we got a judge to say no and in fact it wasn't legal under new jersey law and we stopped donald trump. john: one part of that was come he wasn't compensating the lady properly. somebody offered her a million book -- bucks for her house and she turned it down. he says yes he can take it in you only have to pay her 250,000 bucks. this is just a case where your use of crony is exactly right. this is what gives capitalism a bad name as a developer wealthy and politically influential who's able to collude with government to strong-arm a little old lady out of her home and it's wrong and the constitution makes it clear that it's wrong. but the u.s. supreme court has said that that's okay. one thing we should he afraid of
1:51 am
from a president trump is exactly this kind of disdain for property rights but on a national scale. john: i assumed after the publicity of cases like that and the supreme court decision that the politicians were wary of grabbing peoples land especially in atlantic city and they wouldn't tried again but as usual i'm wrong. now they want to take this piano tuners home. >> in america no one should lose their home to eminent domain for someone else's private use. that is happening to me in atlantic city. i have an entire block in front of me that will be plowed to the ground for redevelopment. i did note that department of redevelopment would get rid of me first. we were here first. we have a right to be here. john: is the ever right to be here? >> is your client. >> absolutely. charlie has an absolute right to
1:52 am
be there. entrance casey had this plan to bulldoze this little old lady to build a limousine limousine parking lot. in charlie's case they have no plan. john: they say they may want to. >> let's take a now and maybe one day we would do something with it. the billion-dollar casino crust is treated as bankrupt yet they are still going to take this guy's house, the house where his mother died and all those his life. john: thank you jeff rowes at the institute for justice. next the president's power grab cheered on by "the new york times." both hillary supreme court stop him? th what is success? th is it a professor who never stops being a student? is it a caregiver determined to take care of her own? or is it a lifetime of work that blazes the path to your passions?
1:53 am
your personal success takes a financial partner who values it as much as you do. learn more at tiaa.org
1:54 am
1:55 am
1:56 am
john: politicians are so arrogant and our current president is no exception. barack obama says he would save us from climate catastrophe. his sycophants cheer him on them and they ran this front page picture pondering what the times calls this quiet war against climate change the terrifying path of climate crisis rising seas freak storms dropped, a planet choking on its own fumes. give me a break come choking on its own fumes? our air is cleaner now than it's been for 100 years. yes, there are freakish storms and droughts but that's not new.
1:57 am
there have always been freakish storms and droughts. there is no proof that climate change is increasing it. the seeds have been rising and global warming may become a real problem but the world has lots of problems. malaria, dysentery, unfunded pensions, terrorism. all are bigger threats than climate change but the president says there is no greater threat facing the world. wow, such a crisis. but don't worry our heroic president has the solution. >> a mayors -- america's clean power plan a planned two years in the making in the single most important step america has ever taken in the fight against global climate change. [applause] john: the clean power plan would cut the amount of co2 emitted by power plants. espn admits that america has strict pollution laws that limit
1:58 am
mercury and lead and sulfur dioxide. >> there've never been limits on the amount of -- we admit the amount of toxic metals like mercury software and arsenic and we are better off for it but existing power plants can dump unlimited amounts of harmful solutions into the air. >> harmful carbon pollution? its carbon dioxide. it's what we. out. there is some more of it. it's not really a pollutant. in many ways it's good for the planet, extra carbon dioxide extends growing seasons and makes the earth greener. that's one reason congress would go along with obama's plan. so the president just issued an executive order to reinterpret the 40-year-old law that covers actual pollution. "the new york times" admits that many see this as messianic and abuse of executive power too burdensome for the economy.
1:59 am
yeah and he might also mention that even if his rules worked they would only have a microscopic effect on climate if any. fortunately the supreme court ruled that the president did not have the right to impose his rules. poor people were spared life wrecking heritage across in the economy was spared one more destructive hit that the supremes vote was 5-4. now scalia's gone. hillary's new court will probably approve those destructive rules and our web site says as president she will implement and extend obama's clean power plan. they are so arrogant. they think they have the power to manipulate women and the moral authority to do it even against the will of congress. well they don't. we have a system of checks and balances so the presence delusion of grandeur doesn't take away all of our rights. i hope the next supreme court
2:00 am
will respect that. that's our show, thanks for watching. see you next week. e jo >>

43 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on