so here we are, the first saturday night of the new year. that time when most of us put together a wish list of things we resolve to do in the new year. take better care of ourselves, spend more time with our family, do a better job at work. but this year, i have two resolutions. one for me and one for my country. hello and welcome to "justice" i'm judge jeanine pirro. thanks for being with us tonight. for 2014, i wish for the united states to regain its position as a leading world power, one that is both respected and feared,

one whose kindness is not mistaken for weakness, a nation that means what it says and says what it means, not one that whimpers and dithers and certainly not one that emboldens our enemies. i wish for the united states to be a beacon for those who yearn for freedom, for only those willing to work hard and follow our laws. i wish for a president who is respected as a man of his word, a president who actually cares more about the american people than politics, who takes care of those who pledge allegiance to this great nation and not buckle to those who hate what america stands for. a president who respects the truth and doesn't lie, one who makes accountable those, yes, even those, who work for him, who lie to congressional committees, whether they're the attorney general, the director of national intelligence or an

irs official. one who doesn't tolerate the wholesale violation of the privacy that we americans hold so dear. i want a president who doesn't stoke the fires of hatred between the haves and the have nots but instead puts out the flames. i want a president who isn't always on the wrong side of foreign policy, ousting an ally in egypt for the muslim brotherhood dictator who immediately suspends the constitution or one who provides weapons to al qaeda affiliates in syria yet stands on the sidelines during a pro-democracy uprising in iran while secretly negotiating with iranian leaders. last i checked, iran is at the top of the terror list. and when i pay my taxes this april, i don't want to wonder if the irs will target me because of my political beliefs. and i don't want my taxes to go

to people who don't respect how hard i worked for that money and simply spend millions on conferences where they dance and play act or drink wine in hot tubs. i don't want my money wasted on nonexistent shovel-ready projects or green energy projects doomed from the beginning. i want a president who sees opportunity in jobs and the ability to be energy-independent, as in a keystone pipeline? and if i had a son or a daughter in the military, when i went to bed at night, i would want to know that if they were in danger, this great nation would do everything in its power to save them. i am tired of government leaders who do everything but punch each other out. i want a ramping-down of rhetoric like one party saying

the -- the president saying that one party is holding guns to the heads of the american people. i want a government that respects religious freedom. mr. president, now that you're back from your hawaiian vacation, how did you get them? how's that handicap? you come back and you try to take away from the little sisters of the poor, a 175-year-old religious organization that cares for low income elderly who are dying, their right to exercise their first amendment freedom of religion. you promised the catholic church you would not, under obamacare, force those with religious objection to provide contraception to employees which of course is contrary to their fundamental beliefs and their exercise of their religion.

in spite of your promise, you are spending millions in legal fees to force the little sisters of the poor who spend their lives serving the sick and the elderly to provide contraception, sterilization and abortive fashions to their employees? pray tell, mr. president, might you have lied to the catholic church? and now you're going to court to sanction one home $6,700 a day? what don't you understand about the little sisters of the poor? now, i don't care if you're pro choice or pro life, you have a fundamental right to practice your religion. you have a fundamental right to the first amendment, freedom of religion. and, yet, you as a former constitutional professor, refuse to exempt them from the contraception mandate. you, the same guy who grants

exemptions and waivers left and right to unions, political buddies, bundlers, but not to the women who have devoted their lives to god and caring for the sick? hell, even a convicted muslim felon in federal prison can exercise their freedom of religion. they can't be punished for exercising their religion. and you go after these nuns to force them to violate their religion or put them out of business? am i asking for too much? we're only talking about your word. religious freedom, the first amendment. mr. president, it's 2014 and we are not getting off to a good start. with me is the pastor of the church of the holy family, my friend, dr. gerald murray. father gerald murray, sorry

about that, father. >> that's okay, judge. >> i'm talking about contraception. what do you think? what's going on? >> the message here, if you like your religion, you can't keep it. and that is a horrible message from the president of the united states and the members of his administration. we do not live in a country where the government tells us what to believe, what to do with those beliefs, how to live out our faith. that's precisely what these nuns are facing from the federal government. fines for trying to teach catholic teaching. that's absurd. >> i don't understand why the president would do this. doesn't he look like a bully with these nuns who are devoting their lives? they are -- they've taken the little sisters of the poor. but what is this about? >> this is the real war on women. remember they were telling the catholic church is against them. not at all. the catholic church gives women, men, all of us, an opportunity to pray to god and to believe. now the government's trying to step in and say, you can't believe this, you can't do that and if you do, we're going to take your money and shut you

down. >> did the president promise the catholic church that they would not be bound by the contraception mandate before obamacare? >> they did, cardinal dolan, the president of the bishops conference of the united states met with the president and he left that meeting with the assurance from the president that catholic concerns would be dealt with. in the past, that meant catholic church would not be asked to violate its teachings. when the president's rules came out, the cardinal was funeral. he said, what happened? i thought i had an assurance? that's why the cardinal sued him. and thank god many of the suits are being won. >> yeah, federal courts across the country are saying, wait a minute, you're interfering with their first amendment right to exercise their religion. but even justice sotomayor in the 11th hour enjoined or stopped the president from either sanctioning 6,7$6,700 a , this one home of the little sisters of the poor, and she seems to think, as about 80% of

the federal courts have across the country, that the president can be stopped from forcing the sisters to provide this contraception. >> absolutely. god bless justice sotomayor and all those other judges who have found in favor of religious freedom. we have to step back and say this is absurd. imagine that a congress enacted a law that every employer had to buy an nra membership for its people. and companies and individuals would say, that's a ridiculous law. you shouldn't ask the nuns to pay for contraception. >> what's interesting is the administration is now saying, all we're saying is we're asking the nuns to just give a third party the right to give this so-called health insurance -- >> no, you can dodge it any way you want. the only reason we're talking about this is because the federal government said, you have to do this and we're going to make you do it and maybe put a little band-aid over it and say, it's not you. it is you.

anybody who owns an insurance policy as provided by their employer, the employer is the one who's now responsible for that policy. >> how is this going to end, father? >> i think it will be a slam dunk in the supreme court. i'm not a civil lawyer. but i read and see in the papers that people are horrified, including judges on these federal appeals courts. they say this is a fundamental american principle enshrined in law, free exercise of religion. the government doesn't tell you what you can believe and what you're going to be penalized for if you do believe. this is absurd. the president is shooting himself in the foot. he should not do this. >> and in addition to what we've seen in the past year with saying you can keep your health care and your doctor and all that other stuff and now lying to the catholic church is pretty much as low as it goes. but anyway, father, here's to a better 2014. >> i think god is going to bless us this year. >> your lips to god's ears. >> amen. >> thank you, father. we're going to continue our discussion of the religious debate raging around the obamacare mandate after the break. and vote in our insta --

poll tonight. has edward snowden done this country a great service or is he a criminal? facebook or tweet me.

truth, religion and the constitution, all hotbed issues. with me, former adviser to president george bush, brad blakeman and radio host and former aide to senator chuck schumer, chris hahn. chris, i heard you on the radio this week. congratulations, you have a radio show.

>> i'm glad you're listening. i hope you stay tuned for a while. >> i did. it was hard, but i stayed with you, chris. i'll start with you, chris. what do you think of the president taking on the little sisters of the poor? doesn't he look like a bully? >> well, look, it's very hard to look good in this situation. but when you look into the facts of the case, judge, as i know you would, what we find here is that they're at -- the president asks them to sign an exemption request. if you sign the exemption request, you're exempt. and your insurer has to do it. in their case, their insurer is also exempt. so i don't even know if they have standing. i think when the papers are reviewed by justice sotomayor and others, it's going to be dismissed. >> but, chris, here's the bottom line. what the president is asking them to do is to give basically a power of attorney, a third party order for someone else to pay for the contraception and the abortion and the other stuff when it leaves them complicit in something they think is immoral.

and that's the problem. >> but it's a slippery slope, judge, because then where does it end? everybody could just claim an exemption and nobody could be required to put into it. >> the first amendment. >> that's why we need single payer and the church would have nothing to do with it. >> that's not what obama is doing these days. the administration says it can't exempt the little sisters of the poor from the mandate because they don't write the laws. are you kidding? they change it every other week. what do you say to that? >> what i say is the most dangerous is the one who has no limit to his authority. he doesn't respect the bounds of the separation of church and state, co-equal branches of government. i think the father in the last segment got it right. he's got obama down flat. what he said was, obama's m.o. is, if you don't like what i'm doing, sue me. we're suing him on health care, immigration, almost every policy the president is being challenged. we have more than a dozen attorneys general going after the president for amending a law

that can only be amended by the congress. it's an attack on the constitution itself. >> that's the problem. it is an attack on the constitution. even this week, uberliberal michael moore says that obamacare is awful. who actually likes this law? are we starting to see the president lose support even on his side, on the left? >> i think the 2 million people who now have coverage really like the law. and i think by the end of the year, we're all going to like the law. as for the contraception argument, look, judge, i think in these tough economic times people need a recreational activity they can afford and i think the american people are tired of being frockblocked by people all over the country -- >> don't go f a the little sisters aft poor. >> i love the little sisters of the poor. >> shame on the president. i'm going to say it. shame on the president for doing

what he's doing, spending millions for these women who have devoted their lives and taken a vow of poverty and taken care of the elderly when he gives his union buddies and -- >> but they asked for the exemption, his union buddies. all the sisters have to do is -- >> and the president told the cardinal, father murray just said it, your concerns will be taken care of as it relates to the mandate. but, brad, 2014 midterms, if you were up for reelection, would you campaign with this president? >> hell, no. >> depends on where i live. >> i would be so far away from this president. all you have to do is ask an incumbent democrat, did you read the bill before you voted on it, didn't you know these things were in there? you touted the same things to the american people that the president did. didn't you know these were false when these were made? if your an incumbent democrat

and you voted for obamacare, good luck to you. as far as the president is concerned, whether it's the economy, obamacare, foreign policy, if it wasn't for bad news, obama doesn't make news. >> all right. brad and chris, thanks so much for being with us tonight. >> thanks. >> thanks for having us, judge. coming up, could the russian olympics in sochi be the next bengha

the winter olympics being held this year in sochi, russia, are only a few weeks away. recently, two deadly terror bombings put the lives of over 30 russians and it raised fears that olympians and spectators could be in harm's way during the upcoming games. one lawmaker who is worried sochi might turn into another debacle like benghazi is

congress michael grimm. he joins me live. congressman, thanks for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> why do you think our athletes may be in danger and why it might be another benghazi? >> first of all, as far as our athletes being in danger, whenever we have in the world we live in today, a world of global terrorism, a massive event like this, someone's always going to be at risk because it becomes a massive target. the problem we have with russia is number one, they don't really have an open press. so we don't exactly how their security system is doing or not. there's no one to vet it and tell anyone there may be a breach. and russia doesn't have a great track record when it comes to sophisticated tactics. you need those to deal with any incident that may happen. >> what's interesting, russia's the one who told us twice, the fbi, your old agency, that the tsarnaev brothers were up to no good.

>> absolutely. judge, here's the reference to benghazi. in my opinion, it's harder now for the united states to say to russia, let us coordinate and cooperate with you to increase security when they can turn around and look at us and say, you can't even keep your own ambassador safe in your own consulate and you're not honest about it to your own american people. you swept it under the rug. when we lose credibility like that, that's a big problem for the united states. >> what to do now? on the one hand, you've got americans over there and spectators over there and on the other hand you're saying -- are you worried the russians aren't going to tell us things or when you say they don't have a free press, what do you mean? >> they don't. the press is stifled by the government there. they don't have -- >> but wouldn't the government look to us and everyone else because they don't want to have a problem over there? >> absolutely. i do think the russians are going to do everything they can. what i would like to see is the

united states in coordination and cooperation with russia work together to make sure we have the best possible security. i think the problem for us is that it's hard to go to russia and say, we want to help you with your security when they can say, after the debacle in benghazi, maybe we're better off on our own and we gave you a heads-up twice on -- >> on the tsarnaev brothers. >> on the brothers and we didn't act. >> what's interesting -- in these recent attacks in russia, the 30 russians who were killed, did anyone take credit for that? >> my understanding is no one has actually taken credit but we believe it goes back to chechens who have ties to terrorists. the other thing to remember, i learned this a long time ago, if someone is willing to give their life, like strap on a vest -- >> a suicide bomb. >> a suicide bomb, there's very little that you can do at the outer perimeters. and we even saw that in boston

at the marathon. unfortunately, no matter how good your security is, there can still always be a breach. it's that inner part of the security that you hope is not penetrable. >> but what's interesting is that this is a free nation here in the united states. and that's part of the price that we pay for the freedom is the openness. in russia, it's going to be very different. i can't imagine people are just going to kind of dance into the olympics. >> no, it's going to be quite the opposite. they've made it perfectly clear, if you're attending these shows in any way, if you're coming to a game as a spectator, you're going to have a long time to get there and you're going to go through a maze of security. you're going to show your passport, show id. and there's going to be several stages of security -- >> and screening, i'm sure. >> absolutely, absolutely. so i actually feel pretty confident that russia will do a good job. i would feel even better if we were coordinating and cooperating -- >> we could be. how do you know that we're not, congressman? >> i hope that we are. unfortunately i also think that under this administration, our

relationship with russia has been strained since the cold war. because of our lack of foreign policy or policy of appeasement, they don't respect us. i don't think they have the respect for the united states that they should have. that's our own fault because of the failed policies of this administration. >> i was reading something the other day where the whole world has less respect for us since the president has come into office. hope springs eternal, doesn't it? >> i think it does. it's also prayers. never forget that we can still have god's blessing. >> all right. congressman michael grimm, thanks for being with us. >> thank you. coming up, what if the lights went out across the entire country? sounds like a nightmare. but could it happen? the terror threat facing the united states power grid is next. [ male announcer ] meet mary. she loves to shop online with her debit card. and so does bill, an identity thief who stole mary's identity, took over her bank accounts, and stole her hard-earned money.

unfortunately, millions of americans just like you learn all it may take is a little misplaced information to wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft. and no one helps stop it better than lifelock. lifelock offers the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. if mary had lifelock's bank account alerts, she may have been notified before it was too late. lifelock's credit notification service is on the job 24/7. as soon as they detect a threat to your identity within their network, they will alert you, protecting you before the damage is done. lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available, guarding your social security number, your money, your credit, even the equity in your home. my years as a prosecutor taught me that we all need to protect ourselves from crime. in today's world, that includes identity theft. it's a serious problem. we all have to protect ourselves. [ male announcer ] while identity theft can't be completely stopped, no one works harder to protect you than lifelock.

you even get a $1 million service guarantee. that's security no one can beat. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock right now and get 60 days of identity theft protection risk free. that's right. 60 days risk free. use promo code notme. order now and get this document shredder to keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands. a $29 value free. don't wait until you become the next victim. ♪ ♪

hammer out a deal in that region. it's going to turn off and it will never, ever turn back on. >> what's going to turn off? >> everything.

>> ben, did i lose you? >> that was a scene from "revolution," a world with no power, no lights and no way out. if that happened in real life, the country would be thrown into a complete state of chaos. this terrifying scenario is a real possibility. would we be ready for a terror attack on our electric grid? with me is curt hebert and fred fleets. how vulnerable are we to an attack like this? >> i'm afraid we're very vulnerable. many americans think of this as just a threat from national

disasters such as hurricane sandy. but there's a rising threat from something called electronic pulse. a 2009 "wall street journal" article said several countries have already penetrated the energy grid and china and russia have left behind software designed to disrupt it. >> yes. and that article in "the wall street journal" made it very clear that it's already been penetrated. so, kurt, what do you see happening if the lights went out? >> obviously there is much to do to try to make certain that the bulk power system is protected. they are doing that right now. the federal regulatory energy commission working with the north american electric liability cooperation has put togethreliability standards, critical infrastructure procedures that will make us safe and keep us safe regarding electronic transmissions, coordination, personnel training and things like that. there is a good baseline there

but we need more incentives to get things done. if you see the lights go out, obviously we can look back at things like the blackout of 2003, just the lights going out themselves estimated between $6 billion and $12 billion, depending on who you talk to. that's a lot of money, not even speaking of the health situation and the safety that we get into for americans. so we have to be careful if the lights go out in big cities, bad things happen. >> and also, the idea of if you're in a hospital and you're on some kind of machine or if the red lights go out or if you have no heat -- i mean, this could be an enormous problem. and with that article in "the wall street journal," fred, what can we do about this? where are the threats coming from? do we know? >> well, a real threat right now is that the power grid is being improved by computers and linking it to the internet. this has created vulnerabilities

that congressional committees have determined that we don't fully understand. and i think steps are being taken to improve the power grid to some extent. but there's been enormous criticism by congress that very little has been done to shield the power grid from the effects of electromagnetic pulse from, for example, a solar flare, that could do enormous damage -- >> what does that mean, solar flare? >> solar flares can kick off an electromagnetic pulse. this is a phenomenon where a very strong magnetic wave can fry electronics and -- >> where does it come from? you're talking about a solar -- from the sun? >> a solar flare can come from the sun or it can be created artificially with a small nuclear device. >> right. >> there are concerns that north korea and iran are pursuing this capability. >> speaking of north korea, kim jong-un killed his uncle.

now they say they threw him to dogs. did you hear that one? >> it's incredible what's going on. >> anyway, kurt, let me go back. why isn't the u.s. better prepared to deal with this kind of thing? >> well, that question has come up and you've seen a bipartisan faction come up with congressman waxman and congressman upton talking about how we do more. i think you're going to see the senate speak to this in the committee coming up in the first quarter. so there's much more that needs to be done. as i said, the bulk power system, a lot has been done there. many of the weaknesses are more in the distribution systems and what can we do at the local public service commission levels to make certain there is communication about this, logistically set up. there's a chain of command. you and i both know, judge jeanine, from westchester, you have to make certain and communicate about these things and shed a light on it so we can

talk about it, all know what's going on and all make it a better place. it's difficult to do. but we do live in a time where much like you've said, it used to be, will this happen? now it's not so much "will" but, when will this happen? we know there are some bad people out there that are trying to do some things to americans and to those in democracies. >> there's no doubt. and you bring up obviously an important issue about the nuclear consequences of something like this. anyway, kurt and fred, thanks so much for being with us and talking about this important issue. >> thank you, judge. >> thank you, judge. coming up, congressman tray dowdy on why he thinks "the new york times'" latest benghazi claims are nothing but hogwash. and vote in tonight's instapol. has edward snowden done this country a great service or is he a criminal? facebook or tweet me.

i spoke with congressman trey gowdy about benghazi and edward snowden.

thanks for being with us. >> thank you. happy new year. >> happy new year to you. "the new york times" went to great lengths to say the massacre of our ambassador in benghazi had nothing to do with al qaeda and part of the proof that "the new york times" used was they said they had a reporter who was talking to the attackers during the attack. now, i have a few questions. number one, did they tell this to the fbi? number two, why do they wait 15 months to release this information? and number three, why weren't they warning to the congressional committees and the senate committees that were trying to figure out what was going on here? my question to you, congressman, is, what's going on here? >> i don't know. i've got more questions than i do answers having read that article, that exhaustive article, including how many attackers were there? of the universe of attackers, how many did you talk to? how many cited the video as the

impetus behind the attack and what did you do to cross-examine or corroborate the information that you were given? up until two weeks ago, susan rice was the only person on the planet who thought a video had something to do with our attack. now that opinion has increased 100%. it's gone from one to two. >> it's interesting when you say did you cross-examine your people regarding this information that you now come out 15 months later and say is so important, their own newspaper reporters contradicted with this latest news story is. do you think this whole thing about, oh, it's not al qaeda, just fits in with the hillary, oh what difference does it make, and the 2014 elections, the 2016 presidential election? >> here's what i do know. go back to when benghazi happened, what was the narrative? at every rally right after the president said if you like your health insurance, you can keep it, what did he say? osama bin laden is dead and al qaeda is on the run.

so what would happen if our fellow citizens knew that al qaeda really wasn't on the run. in fact, they were walking to the front gate of our facility in benghazi getting ready to kill our ambassador, three other fellow americans and set it on fire? how would that have impacted the election? i don't think it would have helped the president in 2012. it's not going to help democrats in 2014. and the fact that hillary clinton's name was never mentioned in this exhaustive treatise on benghazi, nothing -- >> let's move on, congressman, to the whole issue of obamacare. as of yesterday, briefs were filed in a case where justice sonia sotomayor ended up signing an injunction. and the obama administration is basically saying the little sisters of the poor who take care of elderly individuals in our society are not religious enough to qualify for a religious exemption. what do you make of that? why is this administration taking on the catholic church like this?

>> this is not a complicated legal analysis. you have a fundamental right at play, which is religious liberty. does the government have a compelling reason to force you to violate your religious beliefs? the answer to that is no. and even if you did, is there a less-intrusive or less-restrictive means of accomplishing the same goal? and the answer to that is yes. so legally they lose. you would think a constitutional law scholar like the president would know that. i do not expect kathleen sebelius to know that. she habitually tells us she's not a lawyer and all you have to do is listen to her be interviewed and you know she's not a lawyer. but the president is supposed to be a legal scholar, which tells me this is not about the law, it's about politics. they want us to have to come on television and explain why contraception may be a great idea and free contraception may be a great idea, you can't force people to violate their religious beliefs and provide it. they want us to carry the burden of persuasion for political reasons.

>> but whoever carries the burden is really not as important as you have the white house taking on the little sisters of the poor. i mean, this is crazy. and the whole idea of that every few minutes he's giving an exemption to this union, giving an exemption to this group, doing favors for these people. most of the time you're legal when you have one constitutional fundamental right and that is to exercise your religious freedom. he's over there like a bully saying "no" to these little sisters of the poor? >> well, the last time this administration went before the supreme court on a religious liberty case was hosanna tabor. it was 9-0. you can't get them to agree 9-0 on which direction the sun rises. but 9-0 they said the administration was wrong. it's not about the law. it's about politics and it's about trying to gin up this manufactured war on women and shame on us if we let them get

away with it. >> my last question, this week also some calling for edward snowden to be allowed back into this country. do you think that he's done this country a service by informing us of what was going on, that the government was lying to us about or is he a criminal? >> both. our country has a rich history of civil disobedience. in fact, most of my heroes have engaged in civil disobedience. the issue then becomes, do you face the music? martin luther king, jr., wrote his letter from jail. snowden needs to face the music. i don't have any heroes hiding out in russian airports who are sharing information with our enemies or certainly people who don't have our best interest. if you want to do something either go to a reporter in the united states, but don't share the information with our enemies. and if you do, come back and face the criminal justice system and see if you can convince a jury -- >> do we know whether he shared

secrets with other governments? hear me out for a second here. the whole idea of snowden and people saying he could have been a whistle-blower, he couldn't have been. he wasn't an employee. he was an outside contractor. he says he told two of his supervisors. at that point, don't you think that he might say, you know, maybe i ought to get out of here, i'm in big trouble? >> or he could have gone to you, judge. he could have gone to a reporter in this country -- seriously. we've got reporters right now who are winning in court when it comes to whether or not they have to disclose their informants. but he decided to go to another country that we have an interesting if not provocative history with. and he's hiding out in the moscow airport trying to decide what country he wants to live in. i just don't have any heroes that meet that description. mine pay the consequences. if he believes it enough, then do what dr. king did, face the music, in a criminal court.

>> said like a true prosecutor. congressman trey gowdy, always good to have you on the show. happy new year. and coming up, how the obama administration plans to tell your doctor how to treat you. that's next. and this is your last chance to vote in tonight's instapol. we want to know, has edward snowden done this country a great service or is he a criminal? facebook or tweet us.

>> the obama lies just keep on coming. you won't believe the latest one. the administration now planning to dictate to your doctors what kind of care you should receive. with me former lieutenant-governor of new york author of "beating obamacare 2014" betsey mccoy. thank you for joining us. millions of americans are in shock based on obamacare. now what we have got is even worse to come. >> section 1311, h-1-b, gives health and human services authority to dictate how doctors treat privately insured patients. patient who got a plan. >> not just medicaid, medicare. >> not the public programs. it bars insurers from paying doctors who violate whatever regulations the secretary imposes in the name of quality. well that include everything in medicine, telling doctors they can't screen routinely screened

women with mammograms until they're 50. telling doctors when they can do caesareans. telling doctors when they should use stents versus bypasses. it raises the fear, the legitimate fear that your doctor may have to choose between doing what's right for you and complying with these regulations. >> because if he doesn't comply with the so-called regulations which are based on, on, not even sure, but, you have got a patient who has breast cancer. she says, you know what? i want to have a mastectomy, not a lumpectomy. they can come in and say -- >> who knows what the rules will say. they're being written now. the fact that the secretary has given blanket authority in the law. >> she is not a doctor? he isn't a doctor. >> future secretaries will be. my question is this, where are the feminists? women's rights groups went to the barricades for decade to stop the federal government from accessing your health records or dictating to your doctor. now they're succumbing to a law,

supporting a law that allows the president to do both. >> have you ever seen a president, i know you have a constitutional history background, with so much disregard for the constitution? >> well that is the real issue here. we are facing a constitutional crisis, in fact this president is the very threat that this constitution was written to prevent. he represents that threat. because, as a president, his duty, article 2, section 3 is to execute the law. but in fact, he is grabbing the power, to change the law, for example. this health reform that he is rolling out now, there is very little resemblance to this affordable care act that was written in 2010. >> betsey, what its so interesting is that -- we just talked about little sisters of the poor. the fact that the contraception mandate. they can't, philosophically, and religiously comply with this. >> what this constitution says? >> gets rid of the employer mandate can't give them the religious exemption.

>> in many sfepheres, immigrati, he has taken, seized the grabbed the authority to change the law or delay the law. that is unconstitutional. >> all right. belts betsey mccoy "beating obamacare 2014." thank you for joining us. now time for the results of tonight's instapoll has the edward snowden done this country a service or a criminal? my viewers interestingly enough were divided. rick writes -- he is a traitor. charge him. give him a fair trial. throw his ass in jail. the real heroes wear dog tags. while joanne has a different take. he did a great service. no one else was informing us we were living in 1984 now. but, michael tweets, snowden is a patriot. if he is willing to accept the consequenc consequences. and that's it for us tonight. thank you for joining us. remember to friend me on facebook, follow me on twitter,

at judgejeanine. same time, same place, same me. hopefully not as cold. we have 10 second. have a good weekend. all of you

watching. huckabee throw seconds. >> tonight on huckabee. she went in the hospital for tonsle surgery andened up on life support. jaha mcmap is brain dead. >> there is no medical eninstruments that will bring her bavenlth her family wants life support to continue. >> if they take one percent of the money they are 53ing hired guards and help us we could have her out of here. >> what does her family do next? >> bobby shinnedler brother of terri schiavo in a huckabee