IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

All In With Chris Hayes, Friday, May 24th, 2013

Read the transcript from the Friday show

May 24, 2013

Guests: Ana Marie Cox, Eliot Spitzer, Karen Lewis, Pedro Noguera

CHRIS HAYES, HOST: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.
Thank you for joining us.

It`s Friday, y`all. We have a very fun show tonight. I`m glad you`re
with us.

Tonight, if you think the people writing our most impactful laws are
members of Congress, I will show you why you are sadly mistaken.

Plus, an outrage on the streets of Chicago, so blatant, a 9-year-old
can explain the injustice. You have to see this video.

And, in #click3, teenage Barack Obama, he`s fun, he`s little awkward,
he`s little flirty, he`s just like us.

But we begin tonight with a special segment dedicated to Republicans
being jackasses. We spent a lot of time this week focused on breaking
national news in the president`s big security speech yesterday, but a lot
happened in politics this week, and much of it seemed -- we thought about
it all, it fits a certain theme.

I`m sorry, but that theme is Republicans acting like jackasses. If
you think I`m crazy, let`s start in the U.S. House where an all male panel
held a hearing yesterday on a proposal by Republican Congressman Trent
Franks to ban all abortions starting at 20 weeks. The ban originally would
just apply to Washington, D.C., but Congressman Franks announced last week
to expand it to the whole country. Abortion bans for everyone.

Never mind the fact that a similar state law from Trent Franks very
own home state of Arizona was struck down an unconstitutional in a federal
appeals court earlier this week. It was unconstitutional in Arizona. Why
not give it a try everywhere else in the country too?

But no, this is not the jackass where you are looking for. Move along
to the actual hearing yesterday for the big, sweeping, unconstitutional ban
on abortions after 20 weeks.

There was a woman who appeared as a witness, who actually had to go
through this procedure. And she gave truly soul-crunching, heart-wrenching
testimony about the horrible choice she had to make.


pregnant an MRI revealed our baby was missing the central structure of the
two part of his brain. Our baby was also missing one side of his brain.
If this bill had been passed before my pregnancy, I would have carry to
term and give birth to a baby whom the doctors concurred had no chance of a
life. And who would have experienced near constant pain.


HAYES: After hearing that story, faced with that woman`s testimony,
Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas acted like a jackass.


REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R), TEXAS: Just think having my great sympathy
and empathy both, I still come back wondering, shouldn`t we wait and see if
the child can survive before we decide to rip him apart?


HAYES: Louie Gohmert not only believes that he is more qualified to
make healthcare decisions for Christy Zink and every other woman in America
he is actively working with his Republican colleagues in Congress to do
exactly that.

All right. Moving on to the great state of Pennsylvania where we
catch up with Tom Corbett, a Republican governor who is not as famous for
his jackassery as he should be. You may remember when he asked last year
about his support for anti-abortion bill that would have mandated forced
transvaginal ultrasound and even required that the ultrasound screen be
placed in a woman`s sight line to make her watch.


GOV. TOM CORBETT (R), PENNSYLVANIA: I wouldn`t change it, as long as
it`s not obtrusive. But we are still waiting to see.

REPORTER: Not obtrusive? I mean, making them watch -- does that go
too far, in your mind?

CORBETT: I don`t know how you make anybody watch, OK? Because you
just have to close your eyes.


REPORTER: You hear that, ladies? Just close your eyes while you
undergo a government-sanctioned, mandated transvaginal probe. No bigs.

Well, Corbett is back in the spotlight tonight with a video which
surfaced this week of a roundtable he talked with Al Dia News Media, a
Spanish and English news organization in Philadelphia, watch what happened
when the governor of a state with nearly 800,000 Latinos is asked if there
are any Latinos on his staff.


MODERATOR: Do you have staff members that are Latino?

CORBETT: No, we do not have any staff members in there. If you can
find us one, please let me know.

MODERATOR: I`m sure that there are Latinos that --

CORBETT: Do any of you want to come to Harrisburg? See?


HAYES: See? Apparently, the government thinks that joking on the
spot job offer to a roomful of Latinos who do not immediately volunteered
to follow him to the capitol, somehow proved there are just no Latinos to
be found in the state of Pennsylvania.

But, then, compounding the jackassery, his office released a statement
saying, we found one, that actually, they did find some Latinos on the
governor staff, including a woman named Maria Montero whom Governor Corbett
appointed as director of his advisory commission on Latino affairs.

Quote, "The 25-member advisory commission is comprised of Latino-
Hispanics from across the state, Tom Corbett is a man with a finger on the
pulse of Pennsylvania`s Latino-Hispanic population." For sure.

Moving on to Washington, where we find Louisiana Republican David
Vitter engaged in his bit of jackassery this week, that did not get nearly
as much attention as it should have. David Vitter, of course, is probably
still most famous for this.


CHRIS MATTHEWS, "HARDBALL" HOST: There`s news today in the case of
Louisiana`s David Vitter who you will recall taught us last summer, he was
involved with an escort service. He is on the preliminary witness list for
the upcoming trial of Deborah Palfrey, the D.C. madam. What a humiliating
bit of business for U.S. senator.

SEN. DAVID VITTER (R), LOUISIANA: I believe I received forgiveness
from God, I know I did from Wendy and we put it behind us. Since then I`ve
gotten up every morning, committed to trying to live up to the important
values we believe in.


HAYES: I have to say, I actually do not want to spend time, every
time we talk about David Vitter, who`s actually got a great bill with
Sherrod Brown right now, I don`t want to spend time playing that tape,
because I agree with him full heartedly, that people who commit infraction,
even crimes, should be allowed to seek forgiveness, pay penance and move on
with their lives.

But here`s why we did play that tape tonight, because that same David
Vitter who should know a thing or two about redemption and forgiveness and
fresh starts, introduced a measure this week as an amendment to farm bill
that said to people convicted of certain crimes, once you`ve paid your debt
to society and you`ve served your time, I want to punish you some more by
making you ineligible for food stamps for life.

So, David Vitter gets to receive forgiveness from God and his wife and
put his transgressions behind him, but does not want to offer other people
the same chance. There is a word for people like that, but it seems to
have slipped my mind.

Finally, for some real topnotch jackassery, let`s pay a visit to the
Tea Party Republicans of the United States Senate who want to do nothing
more desperately right now than to upend the normal budget process in order
to once again threaten the country with financial ruin over the debt

The Tea Party Republicans do not want to wait until the next hostage
crisis, ready to hit the debt ceiling. They want to have it right now.
And they are prepared to do battle, with whomever stands in their way.
Whether it`s Harry Reid and the Democrats, or their own Republican
colleague and one-time standard bearer, John McCain.


SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: The senior senator from Arizona urged this
body to trust the Republicans. Let me be clear: I don`t trust the
Republicans. And I don`t trust the Democrats. And I think a whole lot of
Americans likewise don`t trust the Republicans and the Democrats because it
is leadership in both parties that has gotten us in this mess.


HAYES: OK. So this is in a category of its own. This is highly
effective, strategically deployed jackassery. It`s part of one of the most
fascinating political stories developing this week, which is the civil war
breaking out among Republicans in the Senate. Its affect it so severe it
is about to break the already nearly broken United States Senate, but break
it in a way that`s mostly likely to benefit the jackassery caucus.

Joining me tonight is Ana Marie Cox, senior columnist for "The

And here at the table, Steve Kornacki, most of the great "UP WITH
STEVE KORNACKI" on the weekend, Saturday and Sunday at 8:00.

Great to have you here.

Steve and I did not coordinate our outfits ahead of it, as implausible
as that may seem.



HAYES: Yes, exactly. Speaking of jackassery, to sort of top it all.

All right. I want to play this sound. I thought -- I think what is
brewing right now on the Senate floor between John McCain and now some of
his colleagues as well, and Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee of Utah, over
whether they are going to allow this normal budget process to go forward.
It`s fascinating.

So I want to play John McCain going after Tea Party colleagues and I
want your response. Take a look.


SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Four years without a budget, we
finally get a budget, stay up all night, and because somebody doesn`t want
to raise the debt limit, we are not going to conference. That`s not how
this body should function that the American people don`t like it. And I
don`t like it. And most of his colleagues and Republicans here in the
Senate don`t like it.

We are here to vote. We are not here to block things. It`s -- this
is just a sad time. We are talking about a minority within a minority,
because a majority of my colleagues in the United States Senate on this
side of the aisle with motions to instruct the conferees want to move


HAYES: All right. I find angry John McCain endlessly compelling.
But Steve Kornacki, explain what is going on here.

KORNACKI: Well, this is sort of Tea Party movement in a nutshell.
And what it`s done to politics and what it`s done to the Republican Party,
because in the case of the Senate, the Senate is an institution, is a body
that really kind of operate on norms, on customs, on courtesies, and on

And what the Ted Cruzes and Rand Pauls of the world have done is
they`ve basically taken some of these norms that are essentially to the
normal functioning to the Senate, and they decided to basically challenge
them, into make it a test of purity. You know, if you are a true believer
conservative, if you are part of the cause then you`re going to join us in
challenging this norm and shutting down the Senate or changing the
functioning of the Senate because it is essential stopping creeping
socialism, Obama, you know, the Democratic agenda, whatever it is.

And the problem for all this is for as John McCain as sensible as
everything he said there sound, if you are talking about sort of Republican
direct mail fund-raising world, Republican primary world, where the power
in the Republican Party, comes from, Ted Cruz got the better in that

HAYES: And, Ana Marie, what I think, what is fascinating about this
to me is, you know, I`m probably substantively aligned with John McCain on
this, but I think strategically, what Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and Rand Paul
and Marco Rubio are doing is probably the right thing to do, because the
fact of the matter is, the sequester we have now, the austerity we have is
all legacy of the Budget Control Act, and the Budget Control Act was
actually passed under duress of the debt ceiling .

And so, they`re trying to just rerun the most effective play they`ve

ANA MARIE COX, THE GUARDIAN: I agree. I mean, I love angry John
McCain, too, yelling at Ted Cruz --

HAYES: Yes, you love John McCain, period. Let`s be clear.

COX: I do. I have a soft spot for him in my head.


COX: But, you know, I was just thinking, like we have to be very
careful for what we wish for, right? I mean, like the thing that John
McCain is asking for is this kind of deal where we wouldn`t necessarily --
they want it have all eyes, you know, on the Republicans to test that

And also, I mean, Steve sort of alluded to this -- the way that, you
know, our elections run now, is that Vitter -- or not Vitter, but Cruz and
Rubio will not be punished for this activity. You know, there`s not going
to be a seasoning period for them. They are actually going to be rewarded
with donations for doing this.

And as people like John McCain who might suffer, who might actually
get primaried, who knows? So they will not undergo sort of the maturing
process this sometimes happened in the Senate, like after you`ve been there
for a while. And I`m kind of curious like how this is gong to play out.
You alluded to this as well, which is that is this something that gets more
and more extreme.

That this fracture in the party that we already saw, you know, in the
last election is going to just widen into a gap? I mean, the Republican
Party cannot hold, the way that it is now.

HAYES: Right now -- I mean, on the floor right now, it looked like it
wasn`t holding.

COX: Right, it does.

HAYES: And this is one of those stories that I think on the left
particularly, there`s an inclination to tell the story about Republican
civil war and sometimes, I think we have an inclination to over-tell it,
sort of over-read civil wars, because political collisions in any
circumstance are messy fraught, things. They`re full of conflict.

But this does seem different to me, Steve.

COX: It seems different.

KORNACKI: It does, but I think the thing to remember this is the
Senate and this isn`t the House. In a Senate, you have six-year term and
you have Republican senators who are from swing states that have to be a
little bit more sensitive to, you know, to the consideration of a general
election, as opposed to a primary audience.

When you get down to the House level, and you are talking about they
are basically no crossover Republican representatives of the House who come
from districts that Obama won.

HAYES: But also in the Senate, you`re also dealing in the Senate.

Yes, Ana Marie?

COX: Well, I was going to say, like, the House are like children,
basically, you know? Like -- I mean, they cry and whine and get what they
want usually. They don`t compromise. You know, the Senate usually does
have people come to the center as they come to be -- as they get used to
the authority that they have in the Senate and they get used to the rules

But here is what I want to say, which I think, this is where we see
like Citizens United is going to make a difference in these elections.
These people do not have to play by the same rules that you used to have to
play by. You can be this extreme and win a primary, and be this extreme,
and win a general election. That`s the thing that I wonder if that`s going
to make a difference as to whether or not the Republican Party to hold on
to this moderate center.

HAYES: But I also I have to say, like I -- there is part of me that
admires tactically what they are doing on that side, and wishes that there
were more Democratic senators who were as who had the same political
incentives, who are as committed to their vision of government as these
gentlemen seem to be, because I think it has been effective. If it`s
breaking the Senate, my feeling about the Senate is, it`s so broken, the
sooner it breaks, completely the better.

KORNACKI: Well, I -- but it`s a question of what is your goal here?
What`s the end to this? Because I think there are sort of two major
revolutions of taking place in the Republican Party roughly in the last 30

And first one goes back to late `70s and the `80s when you have all
these -- you`re always using the primary -- primary challenges are the

In the late `70s and `80s, it was just about making the party a
conservative party. Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, Ed Brooks, all of them
were challenged by Republican primaries and it moved the party. It made a
party a conservative party. But it was still a party interested in

And I think the effect of a lot of what -- if you look at what Mike
Lee is doing in the Senate right now, if you look at what Ted Cruz is doing
in the Senate right now, other than just basically destroying the Senate,
you know, what is the objective here?

HAYES: The other thing that makes me a little sympathetic to the -- I
mean, I`m not sympathetic to their goals at all. I`m completely opposed to
the goals of the Tea Party vanguard completely.

But it`s so fascinating to watch John McCain do a full 360 back to
vintage 2000 straight talk John McCain, you know, thorn in his party`s side
kind of thing. I mean, he has done, you know, he is now tweeting out links
to articles about how he is taking on Senate Republicans. His response to
Obama`s national security yesterday was incredibly conciliatory.

Victoria Nuland, who is the woman who was the one who is accused of
being at the center of the Benghazi scandal, has been nominated for the
post of the State Department. And John McCain is supporting her and he`s
getting blasted by Breitbart.

So, Ana, are you getting the full 360 evolution of John McCain back to
straight talk era John McCain?

COX: Well, of course I am. Also, there is a part of me that feels
that guy never really went away. I mean, he went through a pouting period,
I would say, during the last four years.

But I think this is -- I mean, if I could say that, I wouldn`t be
careful, but I think this is the John McCain I know from covering him in
the past. And this John McCain doesn`t like being called a Republican. He
always wants to be able to be a thorn in the side of whoever is in power.
And he also wants to stay true to -- his consistency is sometimes a little
infuriating, but he is being consistent here in a way that we were saying
that we respect.

Although, Chris, I agree with you. Sometimes like bipartisanship for
bipartisanship`s sake is not necessarily the goal ---


HAYES: I totally I agree, and I also think the consistency here and I
think the consistency here is that John McCain identity is very much
crafted in relation to who he hates the most and who he in opposition to
and in certain point, he was in opposition to George W. Bush around 2000.
He was then in opposition with Barack Obama and his identity change. He`s
now locked in this battle with this Tea Party vanguard.

Ana Marie Cox of "The Guardian" -- thank you.

And, Steve Kornacki, we will see you tomorrow morning. I`ll be
watching on "UP" at 8:00 a.m. right here in this building on MSNBC.

All right. Tell me if this sounds like a bad idea. A financial bill
in Congress that lets banks repeat the same behavior that led to our
economic collapse. That idea, worse idea, letting banks write the bill.
That`s next.


HAYES: Nothing makes you question the stability of our nation`s
infrastructure like a bridge collapse. Three people in two cars were on a
bridge in Mount Vernon, Washington, when it fell into the war below.
Remarkably, no one was killed.

State police blamed the collapse on an oversized truck striking a
bridge support. Washington state officials say the bridge was safe to
drive. Tonight, Rachel Maddow will talk to Congressman Rick Larsen who
represents the district and he`s on the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.

You will also probably want to stick around for Rachel`s follow up on
this amazing public announcement by the mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford.


MAYOR ROB FORD, TORONTO: There has been a serious accusation from
"The Toronto Star" that I use crack cocaine. I do not use crack cocaine,
nor am I an addict of crack cocaine.



HAYES: Earlier this month, a bill passed through the House of
Representatives Financial Services Committee created a massive loophole for
big banks -- a loophole which will likely allow banks to engage in some of
the same kinds of derivatives trading that sparked the financial meltdown
of 2008.

Now, who on earth would right a piece of legislation that would allow
the big banks to run wild again? Well, the banks would, of course. And
who would pass such a bill? Well, lawmakers who let the banks write their

According to e-mails reviewed by "The New York Times," Citigroup`s
recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House
committee`s 85-line bill. Two crucial paragraphs prepared by Citigroup, in
conjunction with other Wall Street banks were copied nearly word for word.
Lawmakers changed two words to make them plural. That`s why we have
lawmakers to make sure that all of the pluralities are in agreement.

Now, keep in mind, this is the same committee whose chairman,
Republican Jeb Hensarling of Texas, went on a ski vacation with banking
executives just six weeks after he took over committee leadership.

But it wasn`t just the 31 Republicans on the committee who voted for
the bill. It was Democrats, too. It passed, 53-6, and while some more
senior Democrats in the committee, like Maxine Waters, voted against the
bill, all seven freshman Democrats voted yes.

And if you are wondering why Democrats would vote for this bank-
written deregulatory piece of legislation one answer might plausibly be
found in a trip many of them took to New York, just six days after they
voted for the bill.

This picture posted on Congressman Betty`s Web site shows several
members of the Democratic freshmen class posing at the Freedom Tower. On
the same trip, they were treated to, according to "The New York Times", a
tour of Goldman`s Lower Manhattan headquarters and a meeting with Lloyd C.
Blankfein, the bank`s chief executive. The lawmakers went to JPMorgan`s
Parke Avenue office, there they chatted with Jamie Dimon, the bank`s chief,
about Dodd-Frank and immigration reform.

The trip, which was not a fund-raiser, was organized in part to
introduce the freshman class to the Wall Street elites that they hope will
one day fund their campaigns. The very same Wall Street elites that the
House Financial Services Committee is allowing to blow up Dodd-Frank, with
plenty of help from the Democrats freshmen class of 2013.

Joining me tonight, former New York Governor and former New York
attorney general, Eliot Spitzer.

Eliot, the House Financial Services Committee, they -- I have covered
them before. You`ve had some run-ins with them.


HAYES: This is not the most shocking thing.

SPITZER: No, in fact, this is par for the course. I mean, what`s
beautiful about this is with the emails, you`ve actually see it. There is
a degree of transparency here that is wonderful. I mean, they`re now
grammarians. I mean, the committee has corrected grammar, not passing
substantive laws.

You know, I got to tell you this quick vignette. Back when I was
attorney general we were making cases against Wall Street. The House
Financial Services Committee passed a bill written by Morgan Stanley, that
did one thing and one thing only, take away jurisdiction for my office to
oversee the banks.

This wasn`t even to soften the bill saying we want to do X, Y, or Z.
It was just get this guy out of our turf.

So, this is par for the course. It was written by Morgan Stanley,
passed by House Financial Services. This is insane.

HAYES: So, here is Citigroup`s response to "New York Times`" piece.
"Citi has taken a lead role working with our peers and members of Congress
to find a commonsense solution." They don`t like the regular lugs. "The
result of this collaboration":, I love that word, "the result of this
collaboration is allowing to an approach to derivatives transaction" and a
lot more --

SPITZER: No, but they are right. This is a good thing because we had
so much fun in 2008 and 2000 in the financial crisis when all our tax
dollars went to bail them out. They want to do over again.

HAYES: And we should be clear. The thing that blew it all up --

SPITZER: Was derivatives.

HAYES: -- was derivatives and they were traded out of one office in
London at AIG. The thing that took it from, you know, a forest fire to
like this threatened the world, was that.

SPITZER: Yes. And that`s what they want to deregulate once again.

HAYES: Because they make so much money on it.

SPITZER: It makes you wonder how short is our memory that we can mere
-- six years later, five years, say, we want to go back to permitting them
to do it in the opaque world of black boxes without any transparency. It`s

HAYES: Opacity is precisely the issue here, because this is tough
technical stuff. We sat around at an editorial meeting this morning. We
thought, man, how I we are kind of like keep this accessible to folks.

And you have now the banks are doing a full spectrum assault on Dodd-


HAYES: They are suing. They are doing in the courts. They are doing
with the regulators and they`re doing it in Congress.

SPITZER: They don`t want the regulations to be issued, so battled
that process up in the courts, appeal them, appeal them, appeal them. And
then in Congress, they try to repeal it.

I think there`s an answer. Here is what it is. Congressmen and
congresswoman love to put their names on bills. From now on, any amendment
or legislation that is written, half of it or more by a bank, we don`t call
it the Smith Jones bill. We call it the Goldman Sachs, Citibank
deregulatory bill and take the congressman`s names off of it.

HAYES: I like that idea.

SPITZER: At least let`s know who`s written this thing.

HAYES: I like --

SPITZER: It`s not William Shakespeare`s "Hamlet", but Citibank
deregulatory bill. You know, put the real name on it.

HAYES: And I love this quote in "The Times" piece. This is from
Congressman Jim Himes. He supported the bill, leads fundraising in the
House. He`s on Financial Services, is a former Goldman banker.

And he says, "I won`t dispute for one second the problem of a system
that demands immense amount of fund-raisers by its legislators. It`s
appalling, it`s disgusting, it`s wasteful, it opens the possibility of
conflicts of interest and corruption. It`s unfortunately, the world we

SPITZER: But he`s good. He lived at Goldman. He understands
conflict. As one of the bankers, what used to be a conflict of interest is
now a synergy. They rationalize it so they walk right into the middle of
it and enjoy it.

It is a perverse world. I`m glad you made the point, though. Both
parties are playing this game.

HAYES: Right.

SPITZER: We can`t pretend to be sanctimonious on this.

HAYES: No. I think, one of the things institutionally about the
House Financial Services Committee is, it`s reputation -- it`s a huge
committee and the reason it`s huge committee is, it`s a great place to
raise money. And both parties, what they do is, they take a freshman who`s
going to have a tough re-elect.

Kyrsten Sinema, who voted for this bill, who`s in Arizona -- and I
like her a lot, I`ve had her on the show. She`s in like a 50/50 district.
She is on the district to raise money to run that tough re-elect. You have
been put on this committee, told you`re on this committee it raise money.

How are you supposed to go about doing your job in the way that that
doesn`t stalk you the whole time?

SPITZER: Isn`t it amazing that you take these freshmen just elected
to Congress? They come to New York, they want to see the Freedom Tower,
that`s great. But they meet with Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon, who just
a mere few years ago were leading institutions that took us to the
precipice, who didn`t have the judgment to understand that the system of
deregulator finance that they created is what destroyed our economy and the
middle class and now, they are given the deference and the respect like it
never happened. That is what appalls me most.

HAYES: The word collaboration in the statement, I was thinking about
today, because we`re talking about the Vitter amendment. I think it would
be nice in food stamp recipient could collaborate with Congress in the same
way -- there`s a lot of people. Ex-felons, I think would really -- I think
Congress would benefit not collaborating so narrowly to Wall Street

SPITZER: That`s exactly right. You know, it`s a shame, and to see us
repeating history at warp speed is just palling.

HAYES: Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, thank you. Enjoy your

SPITZER: Thank you. You too.

HAYES: An ordinary citizen who looked terror in the face and refused
to succumb to the fear that terrorism feeds upon. Amazing. It`s coming


HAYES: Last night, there were two separate attacks on mosques in
England intended, it appears, to strike terror into the hearts of
Londoners. An incendiary device was thrown into a mosque in Braintree
Essex (ph). And in Gillingham Tent (ph), a window was broken and a
bookcase with copies of the Koran sustained damaged. This comes in the
wake of protests by the far right English Defense Leagues, protests which
at times grew violent. Law enforcement tried to contain the protesters.
There were multiple clashes, all of which is in response to a gruesome,
horrifying murder, an act of terror on Wednesday, when a British soldier
was rundown by a car and then attacked with a meat cleaver.

Lee Rigby, father of a two-year-old, had been working in London as an
Army recruiter. He was near his barracks when he was attacked. The
mourning for Rigby is still fresh, as is the shock over the alleged
suspects, two British men who were shot by police and are now under armed
guard at a hospital.

NBC News understands the two men are believed to be Michael Adabalago
(ph) and Michael Obdewalle (ph). One of the suspects is believed to have
converted a very radical strain of Islam 10 years ago. And one of the
suspects created a truly surreal scene in which after allegedly committing
the crime, he approached an eye witness and evidently confessed and
declared his motivations.

I`d like to warn you that the following images are graphic. And part
of the point was so that he could deliver this message.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You people will never be safe. Remove your
government. They don`t care about you.


HAYES: "You people will never be safe."

Yesterday, President Obama, in a wide ranging speech about
counterterrorism, said that not every collection of thugs that label
themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. That
applies here. Above all else, the perpetrators were two murderers. They
were criminal. While what they did was indeed an act of terrorism. It was
ideological violence against a populous, intended to terrify the populous.
It was meticulously planned to incite the kind of reaction it is now
garnering from some quarters.

But terrorism as a category, as a concept, as a word, has gotten
massively stretched until it has almost lost its meaning in this day and
age. But there is a reason, I think, why it is still a useful and specific
concept. Because terror does something particularly horrible to a
populous. It is designed to incite a reaction, one in which people are put
in their worst places as citizens, a place where they are acting out of

Psychologists have found that when people feel safe and secure, they
become more liberal. When they feel threatened, they become more
conservative. We know from our own recent experience, 9/11 massively
empowered America`s right wing. I should note that state sanctioned
violence of war in response to terror has the same effect. We have seen al
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula grow stronger as drones rain down missiles
on villages.

And what we are seeing in England right now in the wake of this
vicious attack is that hard right elements of British politics are gaining
strength. The English Defense League didn`t just stage those protest. It
is making active use of social media. It has gotten thousands of
additional likes on Facebook alone. The English Defense League`s website
proclaims, "we are at war." And its leader is getting a platform.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is
fascist and it`s violent. And we`ve had enough.


HAYES: What terror seeks to do is to polarize the world, so that
everyone has to join different camps of extremist, and those extremist feed
off each other in a symbiotic relationship. Terror seeks to provoke
violence, to provoke rage, to provoke fear, provoke overreaction, provoke
tribalism and knee jerk reactions. And what seeks to snuff out is empathy
and reason and fidelity to principles of liberty and calmness.

But what made this crazy story so incredible was a woman, Ingrid Woyu
Kennet (ph), who confronted one of the alleged attackers. And she was
staring this man in the face and engaged him in a conversation before
police arrived.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Were you not squared for yourself in that



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Better me than the child. Because unfortunately
there were more and more mothers with children stopping around. So it was
even more and more important that I talk to him. And then I asked him what
he wanted, because I thought, well, usually they want something a car or
what would you like.


HAYES: This woman was facing someone who, it appears, had just
murdered someone, hacked them to death with a meat cleaver. And she didn`t
cower and she didn`t run and she didn`t even succumb to rage. She just
looked terror in the eyes and essentially said, calmly, you will lose.
That is how we should respond to terrorism.

We`ll be right back with Click Three.


HAYES: Mass protests could not stop the historic number of school
closings in Chicago this week. Now the protesters say the man behind the
decision to close the schools will pay a political price. That`s coming

But first, Click Three is back and here are the three awesomest things
on the Internet this week, beginning with a resolution to an age-old
question. How do you pronounce this word, GIF? With a hard G, GIF, GIF,
like the peanut butter? I am, of course, talking about the Graphics
Interchange Format, a file format that, as the "New York Times" notes, has
obtained celebrity status since its inception in 1987.

Now anything and everything that enters our world can be condensed and
immortalized into a satisfying nugget of animation, from sports mascots
careening to imminent disaster to embarrassing political moments. The
creator of the GIF, Steve Wilheight (ph), says one of the classic animated
GIFs, this dancing baby from 1996, is his favorite.

Earlier this week, Mr. Wilheight received a lifetime achievement Webby
Award and attempted to set the record straight on the pronunciation of his
creation. And he did it through, what else? A GIF.

So he says it`s JIF. Gif is apparently pronounced JIF, as this
graphic shows. Don`t you get it? Fortunately for the rest of us, language
is created through usage and the author of a file format isn`t the final
arbiter of pronunciation. GIF forever, dude.

The second awesomest thing on the Internet this week, new photos have
emerged of the future president of the United States taken before his
senior prom. A young Barry Obama is seen here with his friends. His date
is wearing blue. "Time Magazine" obtained these pictures taken in 1979
from Barack Obama`s schoolmate Kelly Alman (ph). She`s the girl in the
middle. And wait, there`s more.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She also included a note the young Barry, as he
was known back then, wrote in her yearbook. He observed that she was
"extremely sweet and foxy."


HAYES: Nothing more reassuring than hearing the future leader of the
free world liked to test drive lines from Ron Burgundy.

And the third awesomest thing on the Internet this week -- I will let
the pictures do the talking here. It`s called, well, cat bearding, and
it`s taken over Instagram and Tumblr as the latest, greatest meme. To
achieve optimal results, you must practice the proper cat bearding
technique. First, grab fluffy. You may also want to administer a mild
sedative so fluffy doesn`t claw your eye out. Then flip fluffy`s head and

You now have the appearance of a long, flowing beard courtesy of
family pet. This guy is the Neil Armstrong of cat bearding here, taking
that giant leap into Internet meme-dom back in 2011. Soon others followed.
And the trend reached its saturation point over the past several days when
a Tumblr user posted a collection of cat beards that has been shared
thousands of times.

Now, mini memes have sprouted up, including cats cat bearding, which
is weird, and a nefarious rival meme, dog bearding. We here at ALL IN
eagerly await the meme`s next phase, a bearded Cat Stevens cat bearding.
Make it happen, people.

You can find all the links for tonight`s Click Three on our website, We`ll be right back.


HAYES: All right, a big, grandiose announcement for the people of
Chicago courtesy of its mayor, Ron Emanuel. This artist`s rendering of a
gleaming brand new downtown arena -- excuse me, I mean event center, which
will include a 500 room hotel for the Depaul University`s basketball team.
The new 10,000 seat, 173 million dollar facility will include, of course,
luxury suites. And the training rooms will come equipped with hydrotherapy

Now you may be asking yourself, does it make sense to build a brand
new stadium for a team that plays a grand total of 18 men`s games a year,
not to mention a team that has gone a stellar 47 and 111 over the last five
years? But here is really what is outrageous about this, is that 55
million dollars for this project is coming out of the city`s money,
property tax dollars that should be going to funding public schools.

And Mayor Ron Emanuel`s announcement to spend millions of dollars of
the city`s money to build an arena for a private institution came seven
days before the Chicago Public Schools announced on Wednesday the largest
school closing in the history of the United States. Because Ron Emanuel
claims the city is too broke to keep them open.

The teachers, the parents, the students did everything they could to
convince Emanuel to change his mind. This week saw some of the most
sustained protests and arrest the city has seen in some time. Marches,
hearings, an entire galvanized movement against this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our children! Our children! Our children!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To take my children from a class of 25 to put
him in a class of 36 of is very, very alarming. She gave us the death


HAYES: The frustration and anger was perfectly articulated by this
nine-year-old student by the name of Asean Johnson.


ASEAN JOHNSON, CHICAGO STUDENT: Mayor Emanuel is not caring about our
schools. He is not caring about our safety. He only cares about what he
needs. He does not care about nobody else but himself.

We are not toys. We are not toys. This is racism right here. This
is racism. We are black. We are brown. We are white. And we are proud.


HAYES: Amazing. That was on Monday. Two days later, after a five-
hour meeting, the school board, made up of folks who Rahm Emanuel
appointed, confirmed the closing of 50 schools. Yesterday, a federal judge
scheduled a four-day hearing for July 16th to decide whether to stop the
school closures. The Chicago Teacher`s Union filed separate lawsuits, one
arguing Chicago Public Schools violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
by failing to set up a process of closures for special needs children, and
another suit that alleges racial discrimination, saying the closure
disproportionately affect African-American students.

According to the "New York Times," in the 100 schools that have closed
in Chicago since 2001, 88 percent of the students affected were black.
Overall, black students make up just 42 percent of the city`s schools`

Also, the vast majority of the schools closing are in some of
Chicago`s most distressed communities; 33 of the school closings are in
communities that have lost more than 23 percent of their housing to
foreclosures; 42 of the closings are in communities where the unemployment
rate is 10 percent or higher; 16 of the closings are where the unemployment
rate is 20 percent. And nine communities where schools have to be closed
have the highest homicide rates in Chicago.


JOHNSON: If you close Garvey and some other schools, if they go
behind gang lines, then you`re set in danger for yourself. That`s what
Emanuel is doing. He`s setting up danger for all the children. You are
saying you are trying to protect the children, but you are sending them
behind gang lines, because some kids have to walk.


HAYES: School are the tent pole of a community. And the city of
Chicago just knocked down 50 of them. This something that has massive
national stakes, because increasingly this is a tactic mayors are using
across the country to chip away at public education.

I`m going to talk to the president of the Chicago Teacher`s Union, who
not only plans to keep fighting, but who says Rahm Emanuel will pay the
ultimate political price. That`s next.


HAYES: All right, we`re getting reaction to Chicago`s historic,
unprecedented school closings, just a week after the mayor of Chicago, Rahm
Emanuel, announced 55 million dollars in taxpayer money going to build a
gleaming new stadium for Depaul. With me tonight, Karen Lewis, president
of the Chicago Teacher`s Union, and Pedro Noguera, New York University
education professor.

We invited Mayor Rahm Emanuel to join us, but he was unavailable. The
offer stands. I would love to speak to the mayor about this and other

Karen, I will begin with you. What is the justification here? Why is
the city doing this?

justification keeps changing, Chris. The original idea was that this was
going to save money. Then it was under performing schools. So it gets all
muddled. The real issue is that it doesn`t save money. That`s what is so
unfortunate about this.

It is not going to save the money they claim it will. And when it
does start to save money, the earliest will be in three years.

HAYES: So you`re the head of the teacher`s union. People watching
this are saying, well, of course the teacher`s Union doesn`t want the mayor
to close schools because the teacher`s union wants to keep those jobs. Is
that what why you guys are doing this?

LEWIS: First of all, the students -- when the student move from one
school to another, by and large, teachers follow the students. That`s part
of the collective bargaining agreement. So it`s not about that.

But what it is about is that we are going to have a quality of
education that is severely compromised, because there will be an inevitable
increase in class size. And it won`t just affect those schools. It`s
going to have a domino effect across the system.

HAYES: Right, because you`re going to be putting -- you`re going to
have less schools and presumably the same amount of kids. Pedro, this has
been -- there has been huge fights over school closings in Philadelphia.
Here in New York City, there`s been fights over school closing. Why are we
seeing this trend across the country of school closing? What`s going on?

PEDRO NOGUERA, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Well, I think in the name of
reform, many mayors have attempted to use school closure as a strategy,
supposedly to get rid of the problem of failing schools. However, what
we`re seeing in Chicago, also seeing in Philadelphia is there is no
strategy to improve the schools. And what they don`t seem to recognize --

HAYES: Closing is not a solution.

NOGUERA: It`s not a solution, especially when you have children that
still need to go to school. And it is really not recognizing that schools
play a vital role in providing stability to communities and in children`s
lives. I want to tip my hat to Karen Lewis and the Chicago Teacher`s Union
for their leadership in challenging the mayor, because This initiative
doesn`t only affect the teachers. It affects the entire community.

HAYES: Karen, for folks that have been watching this nationally, and
watching -- we`ve been watching the footage out of Chicago. It has been
incredible. I mean, the footage out of hearings, the community hearings,
the protests that have happened -- explain to folks that are watching this,
why are people so upset. What is it about this that gets people so much in
their gut?

LEWIS: Well, Chicago is a city of neighborhoods. And people are
fiercely, fiercely independent when it comes to their schools. People send
their children. They went, their grandparents went. I mean, so schools
are the anchors of the community. And to lose the school is a blow in a
way that is almost personal.

In addition, the majority of the schools are in the African-American
community. And many of them are named for famous black heroes out of
history. What we`ve seen is that we`ve got very wealthy white billionaires
having schooled named for them, living, by the way, and then -- in terms of
the charter piece.

But Chicago has had this huge increase in the number of schools that
they have opened. They continue to open schools, but then they also
continue to close them, including three schools that were closed when they
first started this school closing piece that Arne Duncan did 10 years ago.

HAYES: So this is the question, right, is this a strategy to -- I`ll
put it on the table. School closings as a strategy to kill public
education? It seems to me like one -- the most nefarious read of this is
what you do is you`ve got school that are in the system. You`ve got
teachers in the system with a collective bargaining agreement. And you`ve
got kids to educate.

And you don`t like to have the public school system with the teachers
with the collective bargaining agreement. What you want to do is have a
bunch of charter schools out there that are funded by God knows who, that
don`t have unionized teachers, and that aren`t in the system. And the way
you get from point A to point B is you start closing public schools and you
start opening charters.


HAYES: Pedro?

NOGUERA: And if you were to hear Mike Bloomberg of New York, or Rahm
Emanuel of Chicago, or Philadelphia, their rationale would be, well, these
schools are not performing, so we have to close them. But think about the
-- the rationale here, if we have too much crime in a neighborhood, would
we shut down the police department? It just makes no sense. We would try
to understand, why are these schools not performing. What should we do to
shore them up and enable them to do a better job of serving the needs of

Shutting schools down just creates, as Karen pointed out, overcrowded
schools in another neighborhood.

HAYES: Karen, you have obviously had a contentious relationship with
the mayor. There was the Chicago teachers strike. I mean, I don`t mean
that personally, but just based on your institutional position. What does
this say about Mayor Emanuel`s leadership, this school closing?

LEWIS: I think if you look at the polls that have come out recently,
as of last week, his numbers are very, very negative when it comes to
education. And people that have their children -- parents that actually
have their children in public schools trust the union more than they trust
the mayor.

HAYES: That`s going to be politically problematic.

LEWIS: You don`t have a clear vision. And you just keep using sound
bites to describe what it is you want to do. People are starting to get
tired of that. It is wearing a little thin.

HAYES: Pedro Noguera of New York University, Karen Lewis, president
of the Chicago Teacher`s Union, thank you.

That`s ALL IN for this evening. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts seven
seconds late. Good evening, Rachel. I`m sorry about that.


Copyright 2013 CQ-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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>