>> the tsunami, it's gonna move faster than you can run... usain bolt won't be able to out run it. >> techknow's team of experts show you how the miracles of science... >> this is what innovation looks like. >> can affect and surprise us. >> i feel like we're making an impact. >> let's do it. >> techknow - where technology meets humanity. do not he has been in crimea, dropped bombs on syria, is vladimir putin the biggest threat facing the world. in the panel. should planned parenthood stop abortions to say 97% of its work. and my final thought on what t e be - unbiased policing.

i'm josh rushing and this is "third rail". vladimir putin is leading russia to a new era for engage: that is not how president obama sees it. >> russia is not stronger as a consequence of what they've been doing. vladimir putin's actions have been suck setful only insofar as it boosted his poll ratings inside of russia other u.s. leaders see a way. >> vladimir putin is counting on the u.s. fear of escalation and confrontation i think that he is employing some of the same tactics that stannin and hitler employed. hitler. >> translation: american military bases are all over the world, are you saying it's us that are aggressive.

do you have commonsense? joining me is a russian pro-demack accuracy leader, advocate and former chess champion. he says he saw this coming and enemies of the world must be stopped. you write in your book that vladimir putin is the greatest threat to the free world. can you explain that? >> he's the most powerful. an existential threat. you have many threats like iranian or north korean family dictatorship. many statelets , terrorist groups, they can do limited damage. they come from al qaeda, al qaeda, islamic state.

they can be global. vladimir putin the power of russian state - not using them, implying the threat could make him almost irresistible. >> he didn't imply the threats of nukes. >> he did. they talk about radioactive ashes, about, you know, the armageddon, and vladimir putin made statements praising the krushov's performance in the united nations at the podium, with his shoe banging it at the table, and the united states - we saw the nukes. it was not an endorsement, but a prays are and a message that i,

vladimir putin, if you go after me, we'll remember. i can do what i want, and i can bury the whole planet. >> why should america feel threatened by vladimir putin. >> everyone is threatened by vladimir putin, if it weren't to live in peace and harmony. we have been building the wall. ordinary people, organizations, institutions, countries, used to respect the law, and if you sign an agreement. we follow the routes. vladimir putin single handedly destroyed the infrastructure of stability in europe that was intact since 1945. it set us up so saddam hussein - there was no single annexation or terror. >> of a neighbouring country... >> sorry, crime. >> yes. the annexation. >> that is popular with the

russian people. >> yes, german people. we are talking about a threat to the world. >> you are comparing vladimir putin to hitler. >> i'm comparing methods used at the rise to power, to the global power, because... >> that's more nuanced than in the book. you're pretty strong comparing them to hitler. hitler was not a leader from the history books. i'm saying what vladimir putin is doing now is similar to what hitler has been doing prior to world war ii. and because hitler was given a green light, he then grew up to the level where he could become a monster we knew from history. >> really, do you think vladimir putin could become a hitler? >> do you want to find out? it's vladimir putin's record. >> what you are calling for is a re-establishing of cold war. i know you say it's not.

it's a reestablishing of world oil. what i wonder from an american point of view... >> strike that. what i'm advocating is to make sure that we have the rules that is reported by all the players. it's not, you know, the situation in 1945. world war ii, where there were few world powers. there are dozens of states, the balance changed and we see someone with an interest, and we are talking about vladimir putin, an interest in destroying the war. he made it clear he'd stay in power forever, and he has nothing to offer the russian public except for his adventures. >> the russian public is happy. he does fine in the polls, ner happy about crimea. >> if you run a poll in damascus, i am sure bashar

al-assad will be popular. >> how do you run poles to show he's doing fine with the people. >> it's not who is conducting the poll. whether people are not fearful. >> i was talking to someone in moscow who said even if i don't like putin, the upheaval, we'll take the stability. >> it's ineventable. as lodge as vladimir putin stays in the office, big upheaval follows. look at the living standards. the russian economy is in a free fall. >> that's what you want. you want sanctions, that's what it will do. >> the russian economy was not troubled. we had corruption, no doubt about it. there was a problem. vladimir putin made corruption and institutions to run russia,

when you look at the least of russian billionaires, all are disclosed as buddies. when you look at the budget. if you want to solvent the problems, you look at social security and health care and pensions. vladimir putin is cutting apparatus. >> speaking of military, in your book you say the u.s. should table. >> yes. >> do you believe that? in what form, what do you mean. >> you don't concede, you know, options when you negotiate. with iran it was a huge mistake. i'm not saying you have to do it, but it's basically having a threat, a legitimate threat helps you to avoid laws. ronald reagan was called a warmonger. how many died in ronald threats.

>> you mentioned vladimir putin has the nuclear arsenal. no one says the u.s. doesn't have a military threat here. i'm saying are you talking troops on the ground. where do you draw the line. ukraine. america. >> no, but america could supply ukraine with lethal weapons, and to show the solidarity. it's not about fighting. russian troops are foreign. american troops never fought an open war, there were conflicts and proxy wars, and where america supported adversaries. it's like playing poker, and vladimir putin is good at that. having a weak hand bluffs, raising stakes, and he knows the opposite side will fall out. it's demanding your resolve to stop the aggression.

bashar al-assad, chemical weapons. i said at that time that that would open door for more extreme actions, and iranians read it as a message of weakness, vladimir putin read it. bashar al-assad is there, and every day they stay in damascus, in his office means more suffering for syrian people, and now you have a war of everybody in the region. >> what is the u.s. responsibility in are, i guess, holding vladimir putin back >> united states, whether someone likes it or not, is a powerful country maybe in the world, at least it's an unconditional leader of the free world. leading from behind, you know, is not an option, if you lead from behind. no one will take the driving seat. maybe vladimir putin will try. and the united states today is - under the obama administration

has been trying to walk away from the most dramatic conflicts that have been created over the years, pretending that if america is no longer involved, things will be resolved peace flyand everywhere will be -- peacefully and everyone will live happily ever after. >> it's not going to work in this fashion. if it was created, it would be created by other forces, by russia, iran, islamic state and who knows what happens next. >> fascinating conversation. thank you so much. "third rail" panel is next. >> this is literally about women's lives. >> do you think tax dollars are going to abortions? >> inherently they are.

welcome back to "third rail". planned parenthood's funding is under fire, should the group stop practicing abortion to save the rest of their services. >> a new battle ground. >> officials in texas barred the group receiving medicaid money. >> the tragedy is women in texas will be heard. 3% are abortion care related. >> 97% of what they do is cancer screening. none is federally offended. >> why don't they stop the abortions. >> david is an award-winning documentarian, his film "the

diplomat" is been richard holbrook, his late father. he received worldwide attention when fighting off access to birth chrome. she's the california state director of an advocacy and policy organization. and nan is a coacher of carley for america, carley fiorina's super pact. >> should planned parenthood save 97% of what they do by decoupling apportions from what do. >> i think her asking the wrong question. it should be should planned parenthood stop being attacked over something that is 3% of their services. >> that is happening, we'll answer that next. looking at the reality, they can set up a separate service funded by the private money. it's not funded by federal

money, so save the 97%. >> i think planned parenthood and providers have an obligation to provide services. it's about women's lives, it's been a fi decades since we had -- few decades since we had illegal abortion. sometimes we forget if it's not provided women will die. >> does planned parenthood have to be the only provider. >> it is the only provider in a vast majority of the communities they are in. it's great. other folks want to provide and encourage that. when they are one of a few organizations willing to step up. they have to continue to fight. >> it's a slippery slope. what about contraception and everything else. i think planned parenthood has to stand that ground. >> is it a right you have if you don't have access to it?

>> it's a matter of providing - i don't know any congressional republicans who object to. i did not when i was there. i supported community health centers. medicaid is an initiative of the federal government. it could be better managed. no one is proposing that central health care be withdrawn for women. planned parenthood is presenting an obstacle in the way in which it has behaved about the handling and procurement of foetal tissue, in ways that democrats and republicans across repugnant. >> in texas it's a direct attack on abortion. it's opportunistic. >> it's a question of should taxpayer dollars be devoted to a procedure that many find beyond the pail of what they can tolerate.

it is rebug nant. >> tax payer dollars are not used unless it's rape, incest. that's the case for 30-plus years. whether it's the intent or not, the congressional budget office said that the impact will be that women will lose access to health care. >> certainly it sounded as though the finances are sufficiently robust that if they chose to separate that service from everything else provided that would resolve the issue. >> i don't think we really have an issue to resolve to begin with. what is happening here is actually a government intrusion into what individual private citizens do with philanthropic dollars.

if they choose to fund services, that's their choice. if they choose to use planned choice. >> you have daughters, right. how do you feel about this. are you worried they'll have less access to health care if planned parenthood survive. >> i live in chicago, if planned parenthood doesn't do this. there'll be a problem. they've been in controversial situations before. >> i think the means are there for planned parenthood to survive this challenge. >> do you want them to survive away. >> i don't want to see taxpayer dollars. >> do you think they are? >> inherently they are. whatever people are saying... law. >> whatever people are paying

for the other services with medicaid dollars, it's part of a clinic's budget. >> a way for reimbursement of services. they are not making a profit. there's not money going from the federal government to abortion. and for a lot of people, it is a primary position, especially in communities when there's no one else. when you are faced with a choice, a stress. difficult moment from families, you want to be with your doctor who you trust and know. you don't want to be shuttled off to a separated clinic. not to meaning a separate organization faces dangerous threats to the staff and patients. there's a lot of good medical and policy reasons for this to be comprehensive. >> a reason this is a big issue, it's an election year coming up. i want to move the conversation

to the 2016 presidential race. >> some polls show they want an u outsider to be the next nominee, experience. >> commonsense is more valuable for many years. >> folk have to wake up. we cannot elect someone that doesn't know how to do the job. you have to pick someone with experience, the know how, the discipline. >> i know that you are with carley in new york. myself. >> what do you say about the argument if one wants to have a job in public service, that's commentable. should they start as the commander-in-chief as the world's largest military, the world's top diplomat, the leader of the free world. >> the chief economist. >> i have two responses. i have the experience of being a citizen legislator.

what we see from experienced folks in government is that what they are doing is not serving the american public well. it's hard to make the argument that the policies that president obama ex-parliament housed led to greater general prosperity. argument. >> it's policy. >> should the person who takes the top job. do you want that to go to someone with no experience, being a public servant. >> we had a pop singer in congress, and that sit significant was beaten. the legislature is different to an ampure president. >> americans are sick and tired of what happened. was there an art? >> the problem for what is happening is not because the folks who are there had experience in government. there are systematic structural

problems with washington. there are problems around campaign finance. we need to have conversations about public financing, matching grants. outcome. >> can we change that system. outside. >> someone from outside. you can't run a campaign, with the possible exception of donald trump. endorsement. >> let's talk about what fixes the structure and the system. and not pretend that someone from the outside could change all of that. >> as a legislator, how much did you have to raise. it's a big problem. all of a sudden, the amateurs,less newer donald trump, changed the dynamic, a lot of politicians run on their money. >> the bar is high. my opponent brought millions into the race.

i would offer this. i couldn't agree more than you, there's far too much money sloshing around and political activity. if the tax code was sympathised. provisions. >> does being head of a business qualify you to be the person with the finger on the button. >> it's not in any way inherent. it depends on the individual, we can speak of people with long experience, who we would not want to make those decisions, we would have a different perspective of people. that is not inherently the - a disqualifier, it's should not be a governmental disqualifier. it should be left to the voters. i hope that the voters in their infinite wisdom do not decide

that the president of the united america. >> a last idea on this, when we look at the race, what seems to drive the polls, it's the debates, and what they say in the media. it occurs to me those little things have little to do, to get a bunch passed through congress, to be a diplomat. >> it's a requirement to be president. it's to connect and inspire the country, that is important. if you can't do that during a campaign, you have a problem. that said, it breaks my heart to watch the way the media is covering the presidential election. the lack of substance, the campaign. >> absolutely. i don't think it's one side or the other. i think it is unacceptable and is not going to change until the american people demand that it does. there's a tremendous aspect. president obama has been treated

like a rock star and given a lot of leeway media. bell. >> professional politicians. >> good timing. thank you for coming we appreciate it. next up, are cops not doing their job to avoid scrutiny. my final thought is next.

before we go, i want to share a thought. fbi director james kony spoke out about what some in law call the ferguson effect. claiming that violent crime is on the rise because police are afraid to do their job correctly

because it may be captured on cellphones and posted to the world. to director comey of police mistreating or killing unarmed black americans created a "chill wind" blowing through american law enforcement. director comey admits there's no data to support the idea. many viral videos showed the police misbehaviour that black americans complained about. that lacked the evidence to challenge or confront. why are police changing their before. we are not taking the initiative as top cop put it. what do the video have to do with police doing their job. cops are public servants. if they are not doing anything wrong, they shouldn't mind being filmed and the need for

progressive policing is no excuse. police in the communities they serve have to reach an accomodation where nonviolent citizens shouldn't have to fear anyone with a uniform, badge and a gun. let's hope it's not too third for some first and leaders first and leaders >> the rwandan genocide began twenty years ago. in 100 days, almost one million people were killed. today, rwanda is thriving. as the president credited with stoping the slaughter and putting the country back together, paul kagame is also accused of brutally suppressing dissent. so is kagame a savior or a dictator? we sent journalist sorious samura to find out. >> for centuries the tribes of this country lived together without tribal atrocities, and