>> with time running out... >> they're losing everything. >> can archeologists stop the clock? >> this is rescue archaeologic - we are trying to excavate as fast as possible.

>> good afternoon, we interrupt our regular programs to bring you this briefing from president obama who has been talking to his advisors about isil. let's listen to the president. >> it's another chance for us on behalf of the american people to

express our gratitude for their extraordinary service around the world every single day. that includes the work that brings me here today. our mission to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group isil. there's a cause, a coalition that's united countries across the globe. some 60 nations, including arab partners. our comprehensive strategy is harnessing all elements of american power across our government. military, intelligent, diplomatic, economic, development and perhaps most importantly, the power of are our values. last month, i ordered additional actions in support of our strategy. i just met with my national security team as part of our regular effort to assess our efforts, what's working and what we can do better. secretary carter, chairman dempsey. i want to thank you and your team for welcoming us and your leadership, including general

austin, who's leading the military campaign. i want to summarize where we stand. i want to start by

>> hidden in the mountains of afghanistan. >> what you have seen was a drop of the iceberg. >> a 5000 year old archeological site. >> this has preservation on a scale that no other sites have. >> under threat by global mining and scheduled for demolition. >> mes aynak is one of the most important sites in the century. >> with time running out...

>> they're losing everything. >> can archeologists stop the clock? >> this is rescue archaeologic - we are trying to excavate as fast as possible.

you can't win with a third party in this country. >> america thinks it's great to have two parties. we don't want to be like italy, where there's all these choices. >> it's whether democrat and republican is a constitutional notion - it isn't. >> you are under 22. election. >> two parties were idea logically defiant. there's no big issue out there. >> why vote for a person that is not going to win? we are joined by green party 2016 candidate dr jill stein. she was a contact date in 2012, and a governor of massachusetts in 2010 and 2002. thank you for being here. in 2012 you got less that half a million vote. you are up against the democrats and republicans, why should

people vote for you, when you are clearly not going to win? >> these are ley thia thats that the public reject. many say they are not serving every day people, and they should be replaced by a third party. people want more choices. about 25% of voters are self identified as republicans, 31% democrats. one out of two americans is in poverty and low income. 40 million are in low debt. 45% is created. it's an emergency, it's not a recovery. 75% are new jobs, low wage. we are getting what they are paying for. it's corporate america, running the show. >> you believe they are the two wings of the party. >> this is not the party of the people.

people are hungering, clamoring for a political voice that is free. liberated to reflect what every day people want. >> there are many solutions to the problem. i can tell you i had an experience in 2002, when i was tricked into running for office. we agitated our way into the debate. in the debate. the things i agree is health care and education, downsizing the military and funding needs at home. those opinions went over like led balloons inside the studio, which was candidates and a moderator. when we emerged from the debate. i was mobbed by the press. for the first and last time they didn't know anybody, and they told me they had won the debate on the viewer poll. you can be sure they have not

down the instant debate since then. the american people are bludgeoned into a two-party system, which has thrown us under the bus. they are quaking in their boots that the public has an opportunity to hear they have a real choice. >> john, can doctor compete? >> running for president is harder than running for governor. you have to win not only many states, you have to win a major city of the electoral college vote. if you don't get the majority, the election goes to the house, there's only two parties serving it. an independent candidate almost will not get votes from the major parties. running for president. this is why michael bloomberg, who had all the money in the world, whether you agree or not. looked at the situation and said i can't win, if he can't win with hundreds of millions, i

agree we have a system that voices. >> we need to build an independent political voice to assert pressure for a change. one we could have now without legislation and constitutional amendment is forcing the commission on presidential debates to open the debate, and you create a powerful voice. it's a virtuous circle and you can implement a variety of reforms. fundamental reforms, the political system, the electoral system is a stranglehold. >> let me point out that outside money can help outside candidates. you queen mccarthy told me he'd never challenge lyndon johnson and force him to withdraw in a victory to end the vietnam war, if he didn't have various people contributing to his campaign. sometimes the outside interests help candidates as they help for example others.

>> i want to bring up dynastic politics. when you hear the names bush and clinton coming up again for yet another election, does it embarrass you as american? >> yes. >> we are not supposed to have royalty, we do. part of the reason they are frontrunners is because people are used to their name. they have the name recognition, voters are used to it. what people don't talk about is the bigger advantage. it's that the donors know what they are boying. -- buying. they delivered to the donors, they feel like, i don't know what i'm going to get. i don't know what i'm going do get with bernie sanders. i know what i'm buying with the bush and clinton brand. >> it's what they want. >> they work for them. >> it's worse than loyalty, the royaltiy brought off by the richest powerful people and the voters - you have to understand something. at the end people say you voted for bill clinton and clinton.

it's what choice did i have. it's i gave you choices, you get to vote. our donors or our pollitt burrow, they hand us two choices. no, you billionaires and multinationals picked the candidates and gave me a false joys. ? then again, jim, the bush and clintons competed in fair and scare elections. sometimes voter fraud... >> in a rigged system. >> they held office, they have been elected. >> they are complicit. they delivered the likes of n.a.f.t.a. >> people line up, going to the polls and vote for them. >> half the people do not go. all the more so in 2014, people vote with their feet. there's an all of time low. there's a secret that voter are clamoring for a political voice, and it's - it's as simple as

letting people know that they have a choice. when they went to a debate, one that i should have been a part of in 2012, because i was on the ballot for 85% of voters who deserve to know their choices. >> i was arrested, not only arrested, but taken to a secret dark side and chained, handcuffed to a metal chair for 7 hours, until the press had gone home. everyone was gone. to me, that speaks volumes about how terrified the system is. i won the debate. when i got into it. i don't claim that for me, but for a vision that is by and for the people. it's powerful. we win every time. they are quaking in their boots. i would dare anyone saying voters are choosing a 2-party system. if you are confident, put a third party in. >> are we a part of the problem. as media.

generally in these debates, tending to be left right. progressive or liberal. are we a part of the problem. is this a problem approaching to the converted. >> we have a name for the press. it's the old press that is not across the board. this discussion is a testa mope ni to that. there are we asnoupsed the campaign on democracy, which promoted it. >> the main stream press, they are part of the powers. from the guys on tv, making a tonne of money. they don't want to upset the system. they love the establishment. they got to a position they are in through the establishment. when someone questions and challenges the establishment. they are more threatened than anyone else. do you think they want rand paul to win, they don't want that. they are afraid of any threat to millions that they make. one last point.

where does the money in politics go? largely to television ads. you thing the television stupid? >> they are not stupid, they know where they get the money. you'd instalment them if you said oh, would you like to take away a tonne of your revenue. of course they realise that. do they want to get rid of the system, no. the powers love this system, no matter how much it de -- depresses the american people. >> furthermore, opening up the debates, allowing the public to have a claim. that undercuts the power of money in an election. >> where do you draw the line. >> there's 17 candidates running for the presidential nomination. debate. >> the voters did it well. >> the league of women voters have a rule. it needs to be candidates that

are qualified by gaining access to the ballot, and being a legitimate choice. if you have too many for the debate. you hold off the debate. let's not create false obstacles. i'm loving this, we have run out of time, we have to wrap. thank you. thank you so much. the "third rail" next. >> the same people in women's sport - it's like giving people coke and pepsi, and wrapping them on the knuckles for not drinking orn juice. -- orange juice. >> do you agree. >> no i'm not watching women >> putting loved ones in a nursing home... hoping for the best. >> my father died because of the neglect. >> are they betraying your trust? >> it's a for-profit business.

with welcome back to "third rail," we discussed whether u.s. elections are threatening america's democracy, let's broaden the conversation to whether all americans should be required to vote, an idea president obama publicly endorsed in march. tom docherty is a republican strategist working as an advisor to new york governor pataki. and a foreign policy interrupter cofounder working to increase female voices and dave zir jen, host of edge of sports radio. tom, 36% of voting eligible americans, the lowest since world war ii cast ballots in 2014 midterms. is it time to compel people to force them to vote. we should encourage them to vote. you have the right to free

speech and a right not to speak. jehovah witnesses are told they do not have to stand. you don't have to change the constitution. where does it end. does a 15-year-old say make me vote. i'd like to take part in the system. it would be bad in the country to make people do what they don't want to do. whether it helps democracy is a strait question. >> i agree. legislating something else, it complicates the process. it will get tied up in courts. what we need now is a focus on how do we encourage voters to come to the polls and remove the obstacles preventing voters coming to the polls. >> they have been knocked out of the pot if people are compelled to vote. >> not necessarily. if people are compelled to vote, this would be obama's worst idea e he decided to wear the mum

jeans to the ballpark to throw out the first pitch. it's a terrible idea. not voting is an act of free speech, an expression of disgust. and it can in and of itself be an act. >> the affordable care act, is it an act of free speech if you don't want to sign up. >> sure, but there are consequences. the supreme court said we have an elective responsibility on questions of health care, like a collect mfiresponsibility to serve on jury duty. >> you have an obligation to say we are a jury of your peers. >> you are on the same side. why can't the yate be like those 22 other countries that do this, where there are consequences, as you put it. where you get fined, in places like australia or belgium. >> i think that instead of making voting mandatory, why do we have election on a tuesday.

why do we move on the weekend when more are not at work and you have access to voting. we throw legislation at it. i want to move on. the supreme court decision on motor forms of marriage. it becomes acceptable. >> critics warn same-sex marriage may lead to other things like polygamy. >> i don't think anyone poms polyam ourous any more than guy. abuse. >> as long as it's adults, i don't feel it's my place to tell someone you can't choose to love who you love. >> what do you think? >> i think we have to address a number of issues. certainly with the supreme court ruling, historic ruling in favour of same-sex marriage

that recognises the human rights. polymerous marriages goes to concept. in a lot women are not consenting, each though they are adults and it seems they are conseping to it. the focus needs to be on are we addressing polymerous marriages, role. >> given the precedent of the supreme court decision, if it can be proved that you have consenting adults who love each other, who - marriage is a social construct, who want to contractually be together, whether it's 2, 3 or four, whether it's one women, two men, doesn't it open up the door. >> no, it's a slippery slope art. if we allow two men and women to get married, where will it end. >> me will be marrying sheep. >> meet by fire hydrant.

>> this is a robust argument. >> yes, the court said person. this animal argument that people give is ridiculous. there's an argument to say how would the supreme court treat a case of this nature, where you have contenting adults - again, serious o issues, women mistreated. but consenting adult, if it's how they form a family, far be it for me to tell another fellow american how they want to lead their life. >> women are not equal to me. we are not seep equally in the eyes of the law. we struggle in the work place, in the political environment. if people want to choose to have poly amorous relationships, that should be their choice. i have a problem when women do not have the same protectionses. >> there's another aspect.

i'm in the sports world. people say "where does it end?" if vikings are depended that. >> i and think find me the canneda naiians that are objecting to the name. >> we open the door to those making the argument. whether in the united states are u.k. or south africa, i'm aware of arrangements that people have traditionally, religiously, where they have one spouse on the books, and others through other arrangements. they might say okay, now we want to be on the books, all of us, three, four, five, whatever it might be. the question then is does the supreme court decision set the precedent to open up that door. and you can't argue with that. >> it opens the door. the problem they have to those in favour of this, you are talking 30 to 50,000 potentially in america.

different to 10,000, 30 million homosexuals. 10%. population, it's a huge bandwidth. it's a small number. pushing the issue going forward, although the door has been open. >> the number of columns written somy... >> you don't line where it's coming from. >> it's not just a legalar ab contract question. or a question raised. it's raised by people who oppose marriage equality. >> the other thing we have to think about is the way property is divided and the legal. how is the legal system going to absorb an arrangement like that, arrangement. >> yes. >> i think this causes, opens up a pandora's box and issues about how does the government deal with that. >> american viewership shot up.

it did shoot up over four years ago. it's far behind the men's wul. a common result when comparing viewership for sport and agenda. why the gap. sports. >> flick through the sports pages, it doesn't look like a woman's world. >> women's sports are the egive rent to male sports. watching. >> really, i think a lot of people would love to watch you say that to serena williams why do so few care? >> tastes are created, first and foremost. a study came out from the u.f.c. showing women's sports gets 2% of coverage on enps and on your nightly news cast. of that 2%, 81% is women's basketball, so a fraction of coverage devoted to winnens sports. when it's discussed.

this is how the study described it, it's scud discussed as if the commentators are eating vegetables, like "okay, we have to get through this." it's like giving people coke and pep si and wrapping them on the knuckles for not drinking or anning juice. >> i disagree. the reason women don't like sports, it's not very good. >> we look at a society. it's not a good as watching major league baseball. >> if you - it's not a question of some media host telling me that women's basketball is boring. boring. >> is it different. >> no, i'm a sports ofish ardo. i love serena williams, and i'll watch her in the wimbledon final.

i'm saying that that is a case-by-case basis. i'm not turning on w.n.b.a. basketball to watch britney brianer when i watch lebron james. it's boring. >> this is the same attitude people have with women across the board. women are not good enough. whether it's a laboratory, politics. i think women come at whether it's sports or whether it's in journalism. whatever discipline they are in. they come at it from a different perspective. i vote for female elected officials. when it comes to sports, there's a level of competition. what is good. >> it's a different style that women have. >> i don't want triple a baseball. they are not as good. it's interesting, i raisele opinion of john wooden, who at the bd of his life said he

preferred the women's game more than the mens. he felt there was more passing, fundamentals, and you have to appreciate it. it's better and more appealing to me. we have to release ourselves from the stubborn innocence. i'm not going to like women's sports. someone asked me to list the five most must-see athletes. honestly without thinking about it, three of my five were women. serena williams. rhonda, and a woman named sasha banks who is a professional wrestler. the ated lettic skill displayed by 21st century women should not be ignored. >> i have a stat about viewership. a third are women, and it's up.

20% women verse ag 18%% rise. does that suggest women want to rush men over women. >> the n.f.l.'s cultural col os os the looks of which nothing else exists on the landscape. u.s. scoty. look at the top shows. games. >> if you want to watch the best, raise serena williams, if serena williams is playing tennis as opposed to a 75th ranked man in america. i'm watching serena williams, i think she's the best at what she does. it's not a man-woman issue, it's the quality that is on television. that is watching, the performance at the end of the day. john wooden, at the end of it, if it's a john wooden team. i'm watching it. it's disappointing you don't think women is not on par with men.

i think women sports brings a different perspective. that is the importance why we should encourage people to change their taste. i'm not one of those women who watches the n.f.l. on sunday, i am not part of that statistic. women are starting to feel if this is not something traditionally for a man, i'll be open to it, as society is changes and women gain visibility in the work place and government and media. inevitably it will swing and i think you are going to see a lot more emphasis on women's sports. there's an argument that they competition. >> they are not. look, first of all... >> that's your opinion. >> it's not my opinion, it's a fact. athlete... >> it's not a fact. >> could you put a female athlete on a court with a male. >> they would play differently, they are physically different. >> it's a different sport when women play.

>> that's my point. >> and that's not a value judgment of better or worse. >> it's that the quality is better performed by me. >> quality is better. if one believes all five touching the ball and passing and back door cuts is the best thing they like about basketball. you have a better chance game. >> i want to move on. california's state university held seminars to make educators sensitive to feels. many wonder if it's political sworn 27 march run amok. >> it's a mike error aggression to call the united states a melting pot. >> it's a foe pass, being efficient. >> everywhere can succeed in society if they work hard enough. >> that's a racist sexist mike i don't aggression. >> you don't want to make it a big deal. >> is this an example of

sensitivities to students, hampering the ability of students. >> universities are a place where all people should be welcome and view points. >> i think that there's - there are certain parameters to that. any long wage that excludes anyone, making anyone feel uncomfortable should not be allowed. mirk managing professor or a lecturer into what he or she is saying, that's going a little too far. >> i want to read some of these. you have the u.c. president janet nep ol itano, invitingthe deeps to seminars, recognising micromessages sent. here are some examples. saying america is the lapped of opportunity implies people of colour are lazy and incompetent and need to work hard are. asking asian, latino or native americans why are you quiet is like giving the order,

assimilate to the dominate culture, and saying affirmative action is racist is microaggression by rul. these sound crazy. >> it is, and now you are getting into are we going to have a scriment. >> i would be afraid of my students. this is everything we need. i don't think a person can say university. >> this is a culture. it was affected. >> when i went to college, we had to take over a board of trustees meeting. censorship. >> does it address the real big itry. these things happen. universities are battle youned. what that says is it's an assessment of where the battle is, where the lines are. the lines have been there, as long as there's universities. as long as people go to universities. i don't really find anything.

when you sensor aggression. these are a red line. what you do is jeopardise education. we are telling professors they can't say this or that, and the main focus is enlightening young minds. >> there's one race, the human race is bad. racial ethnic experience. >> i say universities - whether they like what they say or don't. it's a place they openly kus issues at the day. the comedian won't do campuses because it's politically correct. we need more free speech. we need professors to throw out the crazy ideas, we need places where we disagree with one another. if we don't have the students doing that, they'll move into a society where they feel they can say what is on their mind.

it's not good for society. >> do you think the dissertations should be under the same thieves, where students don't want condoleezza right or bill mar to talk at the university. >> anyone who gets an invitation from university should be able to speak. commence addresses are different. it's a position of authority, there's no opportunity to speak back, and it's a day for the students and families, if you bring a speaker in, an air of authority, and there's somebody who organises themselves and say we don't want them to speak. that says the students learn something about how to organise something. having the students vote on the commencement speaker. in rikers, they paid 40,000 for undertooky. we have "egypt in crisis," --

condoleezza rise, forker secretary of state. they had a board of trustees, whether it's bob hope, ted turp are, i didn't agree, but i was happy to here him speak. he had a different way looking at the world. >> bringing in someone who might be controversial, you know, i think you make a good point. maybe there's not an opportunity for the student to talk back. i think that there's validity in expressing the ideas in putting them out there. i'm in favour of more ideas. they beget better ideas. >> we have run out of time. thank you all for your time. straight ahead. calls for a wall to keep out migrants. not on the u.s. border. >> did the police beat you up. >> they talk almost in uniform stories about the sort of ill >> [crowd chanting] hell no gmo. >> they're slamming a technology that could be used to solve

problems for people who desperately need it. >> they get exited about technology whether it's in their phone or in their car, so why is it so weird on their plate? >> something's going into food that shouldn't really be there. >> techknow investigates. >> you could not pay me to fake data.

how would you respond to might rabbits travelling hundreds of thousands of roads and wasn't to come into your country, we are not talking about the u.s. border with mexico, jonah hull was on the border between serbia and hungry and support for war-torn countries, he joins us from london. you spent time on both sides of the border and saw different responses to the migrants, didn't you. >> i think the reason is that the serbian side of the border, essentially they were passing through the migrants with other destinations in mind.

once they crossed the border to hungary, many arrived in the european union, on the hungarian side of the border we came across a graddued journalist covering the story as we were there for the evening news. she told us how the people carried diseases, and spread rubbish and contrast in serbia, you get people helping them, a medic syrian, paying by everything they see, and you get an amazing local priest turning up day after day at the camp with what little he's able to scrape together from donations, doing it week week after week with devotion. >> let get a little taste of a report fileded from the border. >> they have been on the road for weeks, across countries,

tired. violence. >> you had from them, all of us, these guys. problem. >> the police ask you for money. >> yes, they ask about money. up. >> yes, strong by beat. in my whole body i feel pain. >> desperate people, courageous people resting legs and aching bones before continuing a long journey, leaving countries behind them. not far ahead of them along a well worn path, the hungarian border in the european union. >> jonah, you blog ello equipmently about an incident involving a police car arriving, only to turn around and leave when they saw you and your crew there, what was going on. tell us about that.

>> you get an illusion as to what is going on in those accounts. these people travelled multiple border, illegally, through multiple countries and talk almost in uniform stories about the sort of ill-treatment they received from the police in countries like romania, bulgaria, serbia. they talk about beatings, having dogs set upon them, having their possessions rifled through, valuables stolen, and in particular money, they travel with money, many of them, they need money to pay off smugglers at various points to get them across borders. >> you talk about money, there was man not short of money, a syrian man who didn't want to be filmed. tell us about him. >> yes, i pressed him. i tried hard to get him on camera, what can you do for me. why should i spoke to you.

he was angry at media coverage, the migrant crisis. he feels that they are portrayed as statistics, as problem people, people that bring problems and contribute nothing. at home i have a villa and four cards. a man fleeing to egypt, he hasn't seen them for 2.5 years, he said i am a human being, i have a story, no one wants to tell it, why shoul you. >> thank you for your type of. that does it for this week's show. twitter. i'm

>> >> this is al jazeera. ♪ >> hello there. i am felicity barr. this is the newshour live from london. coming up in the next 60 minutes, the eurozonepressions a lack of trust in greece. it needs to discuss whether the company can be saved from bankruptcy. a humanitarian truce is broken by yemen's warring sides hours after coming into effect. also ahead: rb