Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Tuesday, July 1st, 2014

Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

July 1, 2014

Guest: Rep. Paul Grijalva, Bob Schrum, Flora Johnson, Sarah Slamen, John
Fugelsang, Jane Kleeb

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show,
live from Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. I`m ready to go. Let`s get to work.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Obama cut the crap of the executive pen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You might as well just hand the suicide vest out of our
border because you`re making it incredibly easy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (inaudible), free pass, like you get a piece of paper
that says, "Welcome to the United States, you`re free."

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF AMERICA: We`ll continue to block a vote on
immigration reform.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is President Obama`s number one political

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Boehner got a little dramatic when he was asked about
immigration reform.

JOHN BOEHNER: Oh no, is this too hard?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It may sound melodramatic.

OBAMA: To fix as much and more immigration system as I can on my own,
without congress.

BOEHNER: Hell no, you can`t.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m going to be the supreme leader here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who leads the constitution anyway? The President
pointing fingers at the Republican Party.

BOEHNER: Oh no, is this too hard?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No one is going to do anything.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Republicans are not going to tackle immigration reform.
They`re done waiting for them to act.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This (inaudible) a bunch of cowards and running from
the vote.


SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks, thanks for watching. Do
you ever get sick of the lies, the lies that are just thrown out there
about border security and immigration reform?

Let me tell you the absolute truth tonight as we do every night here on the
Ed Show, Republicans are again doing what they do best, absolute nothing.
This time they are digging their feet on immigration reform.

Here`s the story, John Boehner`s made it clear that Republicans will
obstruct any plans President Obama has to fix immigration reform in this
country. The President, well he`s sick of it, sick of the nonsense.

So on Monday he made it clear that Republicans are the blame for this
problem. The President said that he is taking action without House


OBAMA: America can not wait forever for them to act. And that`s why
today, I`m beginning a new effort to fix as much and more immigration
system as I can month my own, without congress. The failure of House
Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for out security, is bad for our
economy and is bad for our future. It meant the heartbreak of separated
families. That`s what this obstruction is meant over the past year.

That`s what the Senate Bill would fix if the House allowed it to go to a


SCHULTZ: President Obama is right to take action. Hey, do we matter?
This is what the American people want, a new poll by Pew shows that 76
percent of Americans think, illegal immigrants should be granted
citizenship if they meet the necessary requirements. Now, that`s where it
gets sticky, the necessary requirements, something that the Republicans
will never agree to.

Every one is onboard in this country, except the fringe right-wingers.
Meanwhile, the President`s immigration move has everyone freak out over at
fox news.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: President Obama vowing to wield executive power one
more time. I`m going to be the supreme leader here, I`m going to enact my
own rubric of immigration procedures and amnesties and I`ll throw in a
little enforcement for window dressing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s going to get out his pen, he`s going to get out
his phone.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If the president of the United States can do this on
an issue as important as immigration law, what else can he do it on?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, Obama, cut the crap of the executive pen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who needs the constitution anyway? The President point
fingers at the Republican Party.


SCHULTZ: Laura Ingraham, very interesting comment. I`ll throw in a little
security, I`ll throw in a little enforcement for window dressing. I`ll get
to that in a moment.

The fear mongering over immigration at Fox is nothing less than shameful,
they are lying. This strategy is nothing new, anti-immigration activist
William Gheen told a radio audience, "Mexican immigrants are plotting
American debts.


WILLIAM GHEEN: They may smile at you as they serve you your cheeseburger
or peruse across your lawn with a weed eater, but underneath it, when they
look at you, they see a person who they blame to be responsible for their
poverty and the genocide of their ancestors. And the only way you can make
that even-steven with them is for you and you`re whole family to die.


SCHULTZ: Gheen runs a political action committee, the Southern Poverty Law
Center has classified as a hate group. Republicans love to slam President
Obama for being weak on immigration and this is where it gets interesting.
You know, if you look at the facts Laura Ingraham, the President is
anything but weak.

Here are the numbers. There have been roughly 2 million deportations since
President Obama took office. You`re old buddy George W. Bush hit the 2
million after almost eight years in office. So President Obama, by the
numbers will go, well beyond that mark. Now is that just a little bit
enforcement being thrown at the problem?

President Obama is also spending big dollars to keep this country secure,
something the Bush administration didn`t do enough of. In 2012, your
government, the United States government spend $18 billion on immigration
enforcement. We`ll just throw a little immigration enforcement in there
for window dressing, right Laura?

It`s more than all the other law enforcement agencies combined. This
includes the FBI, the Secret Service and the DEA, throw them all in
together, they don`t have $18 billion.

So for the right-wing and Fox news over there to say that this president
isn`t doing anything about border enforcement, they`re out for lunch, the
facts are clear. President Obama is keeping us secure and doing the right
thing by working to grant citizenship for undocumented workers, a path to
citizenship. Something the Republicans will never agree to.

Republicans are obstructing the President, really for two major reasons.
First, well they don`t want to upset their fringe base, no House
Republicans wants to end up like Eric Cantor. And of course the main
reason is Republicans don`t want to add to the Democratic voting base, they
want cheap labor and of course cheap labor is where they make their profit
and so they want to stop these workers from voting.

So what Republicans do is they always come back and say, well we can`t
trust President Obama. Really? What numbers would you trust? How much
money do you want to spend on border security? It`s is been threefold
under this President versus the last administration when it comes to
manpower, when it comes to equipment, when it comes to resources, when it
comes to surveillance and fencing, by the way.

So the Republicans are never going to be satisfied and they`re always going
to throw out the red herring about security. But you know what it is?
It`s the voting block. The Republicans know that they`re on the wrong side
of history on a number of issues. They`re a party of selectivity. They
know that they can`t do anything to turn people of color to their way of
thinking. They know that they are a racist party. They have been, for
years. Look at their policies.

So the best thing for them to do is to suppress the vote, go against labor,
go against voices in the workplace, it all ties in. And now that you got
the Supreme Court being very activist, the Republicans feel pretty
confident that they can turn back any effort on immigration reform. The
Democrats won a path to citizenship. The Republicans simply do not. They
may squawk about it in holler about it and come up with a proposal here and
then but at the end of the day, they know that immigration reform would
drive a lot of people right into the voting lines that would side with the
progressive movement in this country, that`s what this blockage is all

Get you cell phones out, I want to know what you think. Tonight`s
questions, "Should President Obama continue with his executive orders?"
Text A for yes, text B for no to 67622. You can always go to our blog at and we`ll bring in the results later on in the show.

For more, let me bring in Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona.
Congressman, it is great to have you with us tonight on this subject, I
appreciate your time. I`d like to know from your estimation of resources
on the border, the President`s move now is to put even more resources on
the border. Congressman, is that where the problem is as you see it?

REP. RAUL GRIJALVA, (D) ARIZONA: No. I see the problem is not necessary a
resource issue, as much as it is the fact that we have no immigration
reform out of a broken system. And that breakage is what is causing of the
isolation of people, it`s causing the break up of families and it is
causing less security and less economic growth for this country.

On the two subsector in my district, there`s 4,500 border patrol agents,
Humane Sector, 691, Douglas, another 400. That`s almost 6,000 border
patrol agent there. And so I think it`s the mission as well that we know
that the cartels and organize crime are responsible for human smuggling,
drug smuggling, we should be after breaking that up and we should be about
tying up their assets that are in the JP Morgans of the United States, like
we do with terrorist groups, like we do with other enemies of this country
and begin to shrink their capacity to be doing what they`re doing. I think
that`s the target of the long--term.

The phenomena we see with the children, that`s just.


GRIJALVA: . another expression of how broken this system is.

SCHULTZ: What do you think the motivation is behind the Republican
obstruction on immigration? Why are they doing this? If the system is so
broken, why can`t do they come to some kind of agreement to fix this with
the president? What`s their motivation congressman?

GRIJALVA: Well I think you hit the nail in the head in the last part of
your commentary Ed. I think it is about politics and voting base that they
are afraid of, and afraid will never align with them. It is also about a
very simple issue with the Republicans that if they can suppress votes,
eliminate votes then they continue to retain power, they come up with
excuses, it`s Obama`s fault, we can`t trust him.

They come up with excuses about not doing anything. Chamber of commerce is
for immigration reform. 70 plus percent of the American people are for
immigration reform. The economy is for immigration reform. And yet, yet,
despite all of the pleading, all the compromises, all the concessions, we
get a no from Boehner.

SCHULTZ: Do you think the President should go as far as he can go with
executive orders to address this issue?

GRIJALVA: I think the President needs to be bold, he needs to be ample, we
need to unify families and we need to look at this issue, not just as
deportation, detention issue but as an issue of unification. You know,
this great nation of ours is from many there is one. This is the immigrant
experience we`re going through right now and we should be about integrating
people and not doing what we`re doing, leaving people in the shadows and
segregating people.

I also think that underlining this whole issue, in particular this
immigration issue we`re confronting, underlining that is the issue of race.
You like it or not, it`s part of partial, the Republican party has linked
those two things together and it makes it even a more dangerous kind of
issue not to settle and not to come to some conclusion with.

SCHULTZ: OK. Congressman Raul Grijalva, thanks for your time tonight, I
appreciate it so much. Thanks for taking the lead on this issue.

Let me bring in Democratic strategist Bob Shrum. Bob, it really boils down
to demographics. I think the Republican policies just don`t match up with
the demographics. I want your take on this, what`s going on here?

BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well what`s going on is that the
Republican party is captive to a better group of people in this country,
who can`t come to terms with the emerging new America that will be a
majority of minorities, number one. Number two, you have some folks like
Steve King, representative Steve King from Iowa in the House who at least
sound racist when they talk about immigration reform. And I think they
genuinely feel that kind of resentment.

And number three, you have some Republicans who know that this is political
disaster for them, demographically long-term, who seat there in the House
and they look over at Eric Cantor and they say, "I just don`t want to take
that risk, we can`t move forward. So that`s, you know, they`re just

SCHULTZ: Yeah. So what does this mean for the Republicans in the
midterms? I mean, you hear the sound chamber, they`re blaming Obama, they
can`t trust Obama, Obama is throwing window dressing at the border. The
numbers are what they are with the deportations, in the amount of resources
at the border. But as congressman Grijalva said, it`s not a resources

So bottom line here is, what does mean for -- what does this number mean
right here for the Republicans on the midterms?

SHRUM: Well the midterms, they`re going to be a little better off in the
short-term than they are going to be in 2016. Basically you have the
Republican Party on it`s way to becoming a permanent congressional party, a
party that can`t compete for the presidency because you can`t win the
presidency, no Republican can without getting about 40 percent of the
Hispanic vote. Right now Republicans are headed for say, south of 20

So all they`re doing with this kind of politics actually is strengthening
the odds of Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat will win in 2016. 2014
they benefit from gerrymandering, they benefit from the concentration of
Democratic votes in urban areas. But as you look down the road long-term,
that you look at states like Arizona and Texas, with this emerging Hispanic
voting blocks, Republicans are going to be in trouble in the midterms of
2018 and 2022. This is short-term politics.


SHRUM: .that they`re going to pay a very high price for a long-term.

SCHULTZ: And do you think -- not to put words in your mouth, that this is
all about the demographics that they know their way behind, their policies
don`t match up with people of color and they just don`t want to run those
people into the voting lines for the Democrats.

SHRUM: I think that`s true for some of them, I think for others it`s a
simple terror of what`s going to happen to them in Republican Primaries.
Although all of them look at Cantor, none of them would look at Lindsey
Graham. The senator from South Carolina.


SHRUM: .was one of the architects of immigration reform and crash the Tea
Party challenge in this primary.

Look, George W. Bush and Karl Rove, who I`m not in the habit of praising,
understood that Republicans had to make peace with the emerging Hispanic
population in this country. And the reason Bush squeaked in, back into the
presidency in 2004 was because he got about 42 percent of the Hispanic
vote. Mitt Romney, I think got about 25 percent, the next Republican


SHRUM: .is probably headed for 17 percent. So you got these guys in the
congress with their own kind of narrow self-interest in preserving their
seats, at war with the long-term Republican strategic necessities. And by
the way, most Republican strategist, if they are being honest, would tell
you they worry a lot about this.

SCHULTZ: All right. Bob Shrum, always great to have you with us on the Ed
Show, thanks so much for your time tonight.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen.
Share you thoughts with us on Twitter@edshow, like us on Facebook, we
appreciate that. We always want to know what you think.

Still head, a victory for corporate personhood creates a slippery slope for
workers right and women`s healthcare. Rapid response panel weighs on that.
But first, the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to public sector unions.
More on what Harris versus Quinn really means for healthcare workers,
that`s next. Stay with us, we are back.


SCHULTZ: What`s hot? What`s not? Time now for the Trenders. Check us
out on Twitter at Ed Show at wegoted and on Facebook, appreciate the like.
And you can get my podcast at and on and on

The Ed Show social media nation has decided, we`re reporting. Here we go,
here are today`s top Trenders voted on by you.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Four, three, two, one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The number three Trender, out of this world.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: NASA launched what look like a flying saucer over the

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is an awesome sight. The giant spacecraft.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A flying saucer could be NASA`s ticket to more on space

DR. MARK ADLER, LDSD PROJECT MANAGER: We`re going to extend out reach, not
with just robots but also with people into the outer and more into the
solar system.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Makes in space.

ADLER: We want to put bigger things on Mars. This is one of the key
critical technologies that we`re going to need.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We come in peace.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The number two Trender, kiss and make-up.

VANCE MCALLISTER: I`m Vance McAllister, business owner, family man.

JOSH ZEPPS: .is on the how he said he`d serve the rest of his term and
then call it quits.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For a local news paper publish video of him kissing a
woman who isn`t his wife.

ZEPPS: Well looks like he`s change his mind.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The kissing congressman says, he`ll run for reelection.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Congressman Vance McAllister is says his commitment
to public service should not be effected a personal mistake.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, now kiss and make-up.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: However he will not be running with the help of the
Duck Dynasty (inaudible).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tact her up, buttercup.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And today`s top Trender, busted.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The (inaudible) also dealt something of a setback to
labor unions that represent government employee.

SCHULTZ: There is clearly an attack on worker in this country.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Supreme Court`s union decision could have a big
impact on public employee.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The court said government workers who care for people
at home and don`t join the union do not have to pay union fees.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The decision is a blow for the service employees
international union that could lose thousands of members in Illinois and
millions of dollars in lost fees.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That was a narrower decision than what unions feared.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That doesn`t deal them the death blow.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s not going to stop us from organizing, it`s not
going to stop us from reaching out to people and build a stronger voice.


SCHULTZ: Joining me tonight is Flora Johnson, a homecare provider and
share person for the Executive board of the Service Employees International
Union Healthcare Illinois. Flora, thanks for you time tonight. Just
capsulize for us, what does yesterday`s ruling mean for workers in your

FLORA JOHNSON, HOME HEALTH CARE PROVIDER: It means that they are trying to
send s back to the bad old days, where we was working -- in the past
they`ll work for $1 an hour. But when I started working, 15 years ago, I
was at $6.

So now that the decision that they made yesterday, it`s going to be hard on
the people that we work from, because if we are not making enough money,
there`s going to be turnovers, there`s going to be people that want to make
a career of his job but they can`t because they got to look out for their
families also.

SCHULTZ: So this decision is really going to hurt the people who need the
care and the providers are going to do what they do but the people that
need the care are going to get hurt. Will they still get the same quality
of services in your opinion?

JOHNSON: Well I`ll say, we are committed but they might not get the same
quality for care because there`s not going to be enough people to work
because it`s going to the turnover as I say it. People are going to look
elsewhere for jobs so they can take care of their families.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. Now do you think that the lack of protection and
representation will make people rethink a career in thin industry now? You
know, a rising tide lifts all boats, I mean it`s very clear. And the
effort to suppress wages is very strong in this country. Would you have
been better off with representation and being able to fund that aspect of

JOHNSON: Yes. You better offer representation because people are going to
think, rethink about making a career out of this, else we have to be
submitted to the what? The right-Wing is trying to do. And big
corporation and they don`t want us to have, you know, a voice. So -- but
we are not going to go backwards, we`re going to keep going to forward,
we`re going to keep voice and we`re going to keep speaking out.

SCHULTZ: All right. Flora Johnson, I appreciate your time tonight on the
Ed Show, thanks so much. Voices of workers heard on this program. Thank
you all the best. We`ll cover the story as we move forward.

Still ahead, Rick Santorum thinks limiting the right to vote might be a
good thing. He lands in Pretenders tonight. Plus, what is next in the
fight against the Keystone XL pipeline. Jane Kleeb give us an update on
our series tonight. Heartland divided, the American debate continues.
Next I`m taking your questions, Ask Ed Live, coming up here on the Ed Show
in MSNBC, we`re right back.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Appreciate the questions love
hearing from you viewers. Tonight on our Ask Ed Live, out first question
comes from Edna. And she wants to know, "How did you get started in

Well let`s -- there`s a radio story and there`s a TV story, so I`ll them

December 1977 on little KQWB radio in Moorhead, Minnesota at 7:20 in the
morning, it was Eddy Schultz passing on sports. I got a five minute
sportscast. And you know how much I got paid? $3.50 a show. I did the
7:20, the 8:20 and I came back in did the 5:20. So I did three sportscast
year right out of college, learn how to edit tape, it was back -- the tape
reels back on those days.

Now on TV, after I`ve been on radio for a little bit, there was this a
sportscaster in town who`s still alive today, living in Scottsdale, Arizona
and this is for you Jimbo (ph), Jim Adelson pushing 90 years old, watching
this broadcast tonight, gave him my first weekend sports job back in 1977.
He says, "You know what? I think you`ll say something, I say a lot. I
want you to say something." So that`s how it started. Thanks Jim.

Our next question is from Tgirl, "Who picks your ties? Good job." Well I
don`t. My wife Wendy Schultz is in charge, totally of that department. If
it were my way, I`d probably have on fishing shirt. I like the ties too.
Thanks for the question.

Stick around, Rapid Response Panel is next, we`re right back.

BERTHA COOMBS, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Bertha Coombs with your CNBC market
wrap. The Dow dumps 129 points to close at a new record at 1 point trading
within two points of 17,000. The S&P 500 added 13 while the Nasdaq rises
to 50, both of them finishing at new high.

Auto makers are out with June sales figure and GM posted a 1 percent gain
rather than the 5.8 percent decline that analyst were looking for. Ford
sales fell less than expected.

And a report in manufacturing showed expansion last month but the reading
was slightly below estimates.

That`s it from CNBC, we`re first in business, worldwide.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for watching tonight.

The Supreme Court is rolling in Burwell versus Hobby Lobby allows closely
held companies to opt out at the Affordable Care Act`s contraception
mandate on religious grounds. This is new ground.

But it`s important to note, this decisions goes far beyond the Christian-
owned craft supply store at the side of the screen here. Here is a full
list compiled by the Daily Beast of pending cases. Pending cases filed by
companies, non-profits, and universities challenging Obamacare.

The Affordable Care Act`s contraception mandate as of July 26. These 82
employers could drop contraception coverage as a result of yesterday`s
ruling. In the meantime, yesterday`s decision only highlighted the great
dividing between conservatives and Democrats when it comes to women health


women should make personal healthcare decisions for themselves, rather than
their bosses deciding for them.

Today`s decision jeopardizes the health of women who are employed by these

RUSH LIMBAUGH: In the Hobby Lobby cases, narrow though it may be, the
Supreme Court by five to four majority decision defended liberty.

troubling that a salesclerk with Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which
is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her
employer`s healthcare plan because her employer doesn`t think she should be
using contraception.

MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS HOST: This law bypass President Clinton, that all
the Democrats who are now objecting -- signed on to, also voted for, "That
law protects you Hobby Lobby" and Kathleen Sebelius` minions in the
basement don`t get to take your rights away from you.


KELLY: This is about the attentive war on the religious right, not the war
on women.


SCHULTZ: Joining us tonight in our Rapid Response Panel Sarah Slamen,
Field Director of the Fort Bend Democratic Party in Texas. And also
Political Commentator John Fugelsang. Great to have both of you with us

Sarah, I want to ask you first. Let`s go right to one of the big right-
wing talkers of America saying that this is a situation with the Supreme
Court defended liberty. Do you feel like your liberty was defended

hundred percent with the wonderful intelligent Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
who pointed out, you know, in her dissent that all these does is violate
the establishment cause. All it does is elevate one religion`s
interpretation of birth control and IUDs, and emergency contraception over
other people or non-religious people`s interpretations.

This has nothing to do with religious freedom. It has everything to do
with the Evangelicals and the Catholics to make up the majority opinion in
this case.

SCHULTZ: Well, I mean, defend of liberty, what do you think he meant by
that comment? The conservatives who are out there saying that,
corporations should have liberty over people. I don`t know if corporations
vote. I don`t know if --

SMALEN: Corporations don`t vote.

SCHULTZ: -- their voices can be heard, is by the people who own them.

So, your interpretation to that is what?

SMALEN: My interpretation of it, is just another -- it`s false. It`s to
feed into this persecution complex that, you know, gets their base really
riled up.

Anyone can look at this case and understand why it`s a huge violation of
everyone else`s liberty and everyone else`s religious beliefs. That
thousand of women and the millions of women around this country who work
for the 90 percent of corporations that are "closely held", their beliefs
and their liberty are violated by the Hobby Lobby decision.

It`s just a front to further this attack on women and reproductive

SCHULTZ: John Fugelsang, I don`t want to term this into a Hillary Clinton
block here tonight but I -- she clearly is running for president. I mean,
there is no way that a decision like this could come down on the Supreme
Court and she not come out quickly and be vocal about it. I mean, it seems
to me that there is a clear divide here between liberals and conservatives
on yesterday`s ruling.

And it sounds like both sides are talking about entirely different rulings
here. Your thoughts?

JOHN FUGELSANG, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I`m glad to be coming to you
today Ed from Los Angeles, which is kind of like Hobby Lobby in that it`s
full of people who would like to appear moral, but are actually pretty

And, the real winners in yesterday`s rulings haven`t been acknowledged yet.
And those are America`s abortion providers. Who are going to start getting
all kinds of new customers thanks to Hobby Lobby, and thanks to the Supreme
Court and all these business who have now decided along with the Supreme
Court Majority, that some women`s medication isn`t really medication.

And we don`t have an abortion problem in this country. We have an unwanted
pregnancy problem and an abortion symptom. And when you sign on to --


FUGELSANG: -- making it harder for American women in the workplace that
access to abortion.

And Justice Ginsburg pointed out, a woman working full-time on minimum wage
needs a full month`s salary to be able to afford in IUD, then you are
creating new customers for America`s abortion providers, well played. And
by the way, if Hobby Lobby really cares that much about abortion they`ll
stop doing so much business with China which performs more abortions that
the rest of the world combined. It`s not about Christianity.

You want to know what an attack on Christianity is, pretending the bible
prohibits a birth control because you just want to save a buck.

SCHULTZ: So, doesn`t this just put the government between you and your
doctor if you`re a woman? And doesn`t -- isn`t this just a huge issue of
discrimination here John?

FUGELSANG: Absolutely, it is. And especially when you consider that
they`re still providing vasectomies. They`re still proving Viagra. Those
things are still covered. Those are real medications Ed, not birth control
in these four forms.

Again, our conservative friends are very happy to point out that 16 forms
of contraception are still allowed but not IUD, not Plan B.

Now, a fertilized egg not attaching to the uterine wall is not an abortion.
If it was, God would be our most politic abortionist. That is not the


FUGELSANG: But I read (ph) the bible many times, at no point does God ever
say, "Thou shall not wear a genie (ph) hat". There is nothing in the bible
prohibiting birth control. It`s not the sort of thing Jesus talked about.

SCHULTZ: Alright. Rick Santorum`s EchoLight Studio is already cashing in
on the Supreme Court ruling.

On Monday the studio said that it will release one generation away. "The
Erosion of Religious Liberty", that`s the title and that`s coming out on
September 1st, exploring the Hobby Lobby ruling. Take a look at this.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We need to be good stewards of this time in history,
when we have the erosion of religious liberty happening in our lifetime.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it will go away if we do not attend to the press
for religious freedom right now.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bon Harper (ph) knows that it`s possible to wake up the
German church, but they don`t wake up. It`s time to stop talking about Bon
Harper (ph), and start being really to be him.


SCHULTZ: That is absolutely repulsive. I find it amazing that Rick
Santorum would put his name to something so horrific as that, but --

FUFELSANG: Well, do you?

SCHULTZ: . I guess that`s who they are these days.

Sarah, your thoughts on the separation of church and state. That
apparently is being eroded away?

SLAMEN: Absolutely. The morally impotent gang of five. That issue the
majority of paying with Justice Alito has decided that all their years of
clerkship in studying law has made them greater experts on healthcare that
ACOG, the American Council of Obstetrician and Gynecologist.

It doesn`t matter what they want to insist in their lawless majority
opinion. IUDs and emergency contraception are not abortifacients. And by
codifying this type of religious bias language in the law of the land, they
struck one of the biggest blows against secular Americans and Americans
with different beliefs that Opus Dei Catholics like Antonin Scalia.

This has nothing to do with protecting anyone`s liberty. It`s about
enforcing believes about abortifacient, false beliefs.

FUGELSANG: Exactly. And if I may Ed .

SCHLTZ: John, where does this -- you go ahead.

FUGELSANG: Well, Rick Santorum, you know --

SCHLTZ: Go ahead.

FUGELSANG: -- I think it`s great he`s comparing progressives who want
birth control to Nazi. The Nazis were anti-union or anti-gay, they`re
anti-collective bargaining, very nationalistic. Who is that remind you of?

You know, and I think people who compare people in Nazi are worse than
Hitler. But, I do want to say this. Rick Santorum is a guy who is very
pro-death penalty, something the Vatican is against, something Jesus
actually spoke about unlike birth control and abortion.

He loved the Iraqi war. You know Rick Santorum`s allegiance to Vatican
teachings. He`s sort of like a sweater vest. It`s really to slip off when
it gets uncomfortable for you.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. Now, both of you saw the list of 82 companies that we just
showed a moment ago with pending cases. I mean, what will this really mean
for women`s healthcare down the road.

John, where does this go from here? Is it -- and Hillary Clinton addressed
this as well. This is rather narrow now, but it could be very broad in the
future and it`s effect.

FUGELSANG: Yeah. I agree, I mean, this is not a slippery slope. This is
a like ski jump covered in lobe. And again, I want people in the Supreme
Court. I want the media to talk more about the fact that there`s no part
of the bible that actually prohibits a birth control.

So, it`s not about Hobby Looby`s deep faith and conviction. It`s about
their taste. And at the end of a day, it`s about they`re not wanting to
spend in extra buck on contraceptive for their female employees while their
IRA -- I`m sorry their 401(k) plan has over $73 million invested in the
same big pharma companies that manufacture Plan B and the IUD.

The hypocrisy is pretty steeply (ph) with these guys. I think that
Democrats uses --

SCHULTZ: And quickly Sarah --

FUGELSANG: -- war on women too much, but I think this is --


FUGELSANG: -- peer (ph) case.


SCHJULTZ: Sarah quickly, will this help turn Texas blue?

SLAMEN: Yes, it will. You know, I think people, men and women are seeing
the writing on the wall. The fight is here, men please stand up and join
us and help us fight off this tyranny from the Supreme Court.

There`s a democratic headquarters in almost every city in this country, go
find these headquarters. We`re here to defend your right to access to
healthcare. We`re here to defend your right to equal pays so that you can
get the healthcare that you need. We`re here to defend you right to
unionize, unlike the other horrible decisions that they passed down

We`re here with open arms.

SCHULTZ: All right.

SLAMEN: . we have a diverse slate of candidates.

SCHULTZ: John Fugelsang and Sarah Slamen, great to have both of you with
us here on the Ed Show tonight. Thanks for your time.

Coming up, the evolution of the fight against Keystone XL Pipeline and
where it all stands now as there are new developments.

Our series Divided Heartland, The American Debate continues.

Stay with us, we`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Breaking news from Southern
California. We`re looking at live shots of protesters trying to stop three
busses full of immigrant families including young children trying to get
away border patrol facility in Southern California.

These children were flown in from Texas and were supposed to be temporarily
housed at this facility. Anti-immigration protesters have blocked the
road. The busses have been forced to turn around.

We`ll continue to follow this story and bring you any new developments. We
will definitely have more on this tomorrow night. Clearly, public and
private citizens taking the law into their own hands and turning these
busses of children away.

We were talking about immigration earlier in this program and there you see
it unfolded in Murrieta, California at this hour. Protesters blocking
busses carrying immigrants in California.

And we will be right back here on Ed Show. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the ED Show. Punch Out story tonight, the
breadbasket of America is at a crossroads. Debate over the proposed
Keystone XL Pipeline has divided communities in Montana, Nebraska and South
Dakota. The interesting development here on Sunday, the permit TransCanada
needed to build in South Dakota expired. Now, the oil company has to

Montana approved the easements to let the Keystone XL Pipeline cross-state
owned land including the Missouri and Yellow Stone Rivers two years ago.
Well, according to recent reports Montana residence still believe the
promise that TransCanada will bring millions of dollars and taxes and
thousands of new jobs. We heard a very different story from folks in York,
Nebraska earlier this spring. Land donors told the ED Show about the
misinformation campaign and aggressive land grab tactics TransCanada has
tried to use.


to talk about the pipeline. This is an issue that is at the heart of a lot
of things in Nebraska because -- and I think one of the main reasons is, it
brings everything together.
SCHULTZ: For the people of Nebraska, it`s about the aquifer and the land
grab. These two issues have cultivated new alliances.

KLEEB: It`s the citizens and land owners and the tribes that have really
become a strong alliance with us. You know, when we started we had about a
thousand e-mails of folks and now we have over 25,000. And about 90
percent of those are Nebraskans, and over 3,500 small donors, mostly
Nebraskans as well. So we have strong support in our State.

SCHULTZ: Land owners here, say they have experienced what they never
thought could happen in America.

RANDY THOMPSON, FILED PIPELINE LAWSUIT: What`s really outrageous part of
this whole thing that our governor and are legislature granted the power of
imminent domain to a foreign corporation that is still in the permitting
process. They had the power to come and condemn any of our properties that
run along the pipeline route, even though they don`t have a permit to be in
the United States.

I mean, to me that is totally outrageous. And the sad part is, if you
follow the pipeline route, South Dakota has the same thing. Montana has
very -- they changed their imminent domain laws in favor of pipelines and
that type of thing. And so they have greased all the wheels, all up and
down the line. You know, they have undo influence in so many legislatures.
And, you know, we`re seeing the power of money in America.

SCHULTZ: In this entire debate, the only assurance that land owners have
been given about protecting the water is a shrug at their shoulders. Just
don`t worry about it.

THOMPSON: Well, it`s a safest ship that was ever built.

SCHULTZ: It`s (inaudible) --

KLEEB: Well, we`re definitely stubborn here in Nebraska. There`s no
question about that. But land owners in other states are stubborn as well.
I think the water, the massive amounts of the Ogallala Aquifer that our
State sits on, definitely is a game changer with this pipeline. And it
certainly touches other states as well, but you`re essentially talking
about our entire State and we`re in that State, we`re not in oil state.


SCHULTZ: Joining me tonight, Jane Kleeb, Executive Direct of Bold
Nebraska. Since that story was filed, the absolutes remain. It is still a
massive risk to our aquifer in the middle of the country. And there are
new developments as far as the permitting process is concerned but Jane, I
want to know about Montana.

Is it done deal in Montana or is imminent domain still an issue there?
And, now that there has been a correction of a lot of information out
there, are you going to expand your message in outreach to that state?

KLEEB: We are definitely are ready reaching out to the tribes and land
owners that are in Montana. You know, there was a spill in the Yellow
Stone River a couple of years ago and not really got land owner`s awareness
level up. You know, TransCanada has essentially lied to not only Gov.
Schweitzer and Sen. Tester but the citizens.

They have told citizens that the pipeline will bring over $18 million a
year in local property tax which is just not true. We have Keystone One as
the example. And they said that, you know, we`ll help get the 500 thousand
barrels of Bakken oil to the market, when TransCanada has contracts for
only 6 percent of their line to carry Montana and North Dakota oil. So,
they`ve been sold the bill good and it`s upsetting that Democrats in that
state haven`t pushed back harder.

SCHULTZ: What`s the difference this time around for TransCanada getting a
permit in South Dakota? Why would it just be filing the paper work?

KLEEB: Yes. I mean the real difference is, is that tribes and land owners
actually know the real story about his pipeline, that this an export
pipeline that American oil production has actually gone up and our domain
has gone down which is the exact opposite of what TransCanada told in South
Dakota. And the main reason why they needed this permit, tribes certainly
have all of their lawyers together that are already strategizing to fight
around water rights and about a cultural resources studies that haven`t
been done.

And so, land owners aren`t falling for this talking point anymore from
TransCanada that says, "If you let us take your land and you let us pump
this oil, your gas prices are magically going to go down". People know
it`s not true and they know that the risk out weights any type of reward
that TransCanada will put forward.

SCHULTZ: Jane I know that Secretary of State John Kerry is a busy guy as
of late with a lot going on, but why hasn`t he stepped forward and given a
recommendation on this?

KLEEB: You know, I don`t know Ed, to be honest. You know, Sec. Kerry has
a long history of fighting for climate change. Him and his wife give lots
of grants, you know, through their foundation to work on local issues
around climate change and global warming and so it makes no sense. It
makes no sense that Sec. Kerry wouldn`t take a request that land owners
have given him, time and time again to not only come see our lands and our
water, but we would be proud to go to D.C. to meet with him.

That request has been denied over and over again. So, he has to meet us
face-to-face. If they`re asking -- one of the farmer is actually at the
kitchen table day to day Ed, said to me if, you know, "If TransCanada
selling the apples, I would want to sample those apples". Well, if
TransCanada is trying to sell us this Tar Sands oil, we want to see that
Tar Sands oil.

And TransCanada refuse us to let us see it, so Sec. Kerry needs to come and
see us.

SCHULTZ: OK. Jane Kleeb, Bold Nebraska. Keep up the great work. We will
continue to cover the story. It`s not going away. And emotions are very
high in the middle of the country very controversial, that`s if you are for

It`s not controversial for those who are against it. They have the facts
on this. That`s the ED Show. I`m Ed Schultz. Politic Station with
Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening, Rev.


<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2014 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>

The Ed Show Section Front
Add The Ed Show headlines to your news reader:

Sponsored links

Resource guide