part of it is the demonization of the other faith. one is considered violence and in other areas it is an effort to con vert people to your faith. it is one of the reasons why there is talk about looking at hate speech and evangelicalizing materials and the reduction of loud speakers, driving your car around -- a christian pastor driving his car around in a muslim areas. these efforts create tension. but you have the state level initiatives i know about i am not really familiar with interfaith efforts that really tackle this strongly. >> another thing in all of this is in so many places whether it is one layer or multiple layers or different layers -- one layer

of multiple different things going on. just to end with a story. i was talking about conflict and clashes in jobs in the middle of nigeria. it was herders versus sedentary farmers or settlers verse indigenous. it did have a muslim-christian element in it but i was trying to explain it on this tv interview in a nuance way. when i saw what they put up there is me speaking in a very nuanced way and behind me was a map that said muslim on the top, christian on the bottom and a big boom in the middle. so, yeah a lot of simplification of many different grievances whether it is political, ethnic, the settler-endogen thing is

huge. and once they take on the religious overtone and undertone they become hard to put back in the bottle. it is hard not to conflate religion and extremism and violence with the other issues and try to tackle what is at the core which often isn't ideology at all. >> we are at time. i will give you one last word if you would like to wrap it up or have you said your peace for the day? >> i think it is very important when we talk about this acronym that i don't like really but we should not think that cde is something that we need to bring to africa. i think it is very important on

the line of cde activities are going on daily done by fathers, mothers, community leaders toward the local communities. the fact we don't see religious violence as the dominating feature of islam shows that there are active programs going on on the grassroots and i think that if we are to do something meaningful as outside actors we need fine-grained knowledge about these actors and soberness and accuracy in cooperating with them in a very meaningful manner instead of going through -- or maybe together with going through pore established bodies that often maxed the necessary

creditability among the grass root populations. >> thank you. thank you both. >> thank you joining us and staying with us until the bitter end. we hope you will join us down the line for future sessions that come out of the roundtable. we are almost certain to have terje back to washington to talk more about his work on the horn in east africa. the csis africa program is just coming out with a report on violent extremism so keep your eye out on the website and we will look forward to seeing you down the line. thanks very much. [applause]

[inaudible conversation] >> you can watch this program later on our website. and nancy pelosi is leading a delegation of eight leaders to rome, italy. here was the first tweet: what an honor to receive the golden eagle award in rome. congress is out until after labor day but house and senate primaries take place tomorrow in kansas, michigan, missouri and washington state. two new representatives will be

elected from michigan this fall. voters in that first and tenth districts will elect candidates to replace two retiring members. roy blunt, a member of the gop leadership, faces three challenges and one of four democratic candidates will be selected tomorrow. washington state democrat patty murray faces 16 challengers. and tonight on booktv, programs about energy. starting at 8:30, we have hotter and her book about the future of energy and the environment. after that, steven nor and kathleen white on their book fueling freedom, exposing the mad war on energy. and then the panic at the pump, the energy crisis and the transformation of american politics in the 1970's. >> this week on "the communicators". a visit to a consumer electronic

show on capitol hill, cta's biggest show is in las vegas during the winter but in the spring vendors and technology companies come to capitol hill to explain technology and electronics to policymakers. here are some conversations with people at the show. >> host: what are you showing the members of congress down here? >> a new company started. wireline broadband in the u.s. and it is great big opportunity to do that. >> host: what is that behind you? >> we are the next frontier in wireless communication and what

that means is you are looking at ten times, 15 times the frequency of operation. the big advantage of that is bandwidth so you can pump more data. the first uses of this was in wireline broadband. it as a huge trend and one of the opportunities. these things have other limp limitations as well b. they can't penetrate buildings but if you can figure out your way around those things it is a lot of fun. >> host: have you figured out a way around that? >> we thing so. >> host: can you give us a th thumbnail of what the technology

does? >> we built a base using technology that was in radar systems and sends signals along the system and back. what we are doing is using the same strategy for communications technology which is novel and knew but a lot of new systems are here because as you go up in frequency the power in the airways becomes an exepensive challenge. we got our inspiration from radar and applied communication systems. that is one. and the seck thing is wi-fi is an exciting technology because there is a lot of innovation happening in wi-fi at big radio levels so we adopted those approaches and created a system that allows us to overcome tip

challenges. >> host: wi-fi is an old technology today, isn't it? >> it is so advanced. a lot of the innovation is by far the best. the beauty of that is that they are consumer grid technologies so the cost is incredible. you can get for five or ten dollars is a radio that took billions to develop -- there are two really interesting things that have been developed. the next generation in wi-fi and the next innovation in 5g and i think they are coming together. >> host: when do you see 5g being born?

>> well, 5g is interesting because it has thois whole idea of low but high distributed but it has this notion of high connection to devices and it has to use of millimeter waves. i think it is going to be interesting to see the conventional wisdom is the standard being developed by 2020 and after that i think you are looking at silicone development. so i think it is not that far away. we think it is a continuous cycle. so lte is probably going to be old soon in another four or five years. i think you will see the next wave of innovation coming after that >> host: what is in this box? >> this is your large home wi-fi and this is how you experience

the service. the service starts with basic powerful device. the idea is you can put them on roof tops, houses, towers, waufsh. and devices like these are mounted on top of buildings and can be used in single-family homes like an antenna and this device allows you to get the powerful signal inside your home. >> host: does this technology in any way relate to your technology that you developed for area? >> frequency differences. we are talking about millimeter here. there is nothing related to areo. >> you may remember the supreme

court case for aero. could this be enough of a disrupter to go to court? >> no, no. th there is no question of law involved. >> host: founder of starry. starry.com. chet kanojia. >> thank you. >> insignia is displaying this. what are we looking at? >> this is our cx2. it is an auto motive super computer to enable cars to drive themselves. we plug in to cameras, radar everything on the car, and eventually we are building a three dimensional model.

we are showing our vehicle. it has the cameras added to it. the data comes in and what we can show is how that data would appear within the brain of this system. actually building a full three dimensional model of what the cars can see. tying that are laser information and the camera information we cannot use artificial intelligence to identify what the car senses. we would never display that to the driver but this is what we used in our development environment. everything that is going on around the car. if we go back one slide we can show you how we are able to detect the types of objects. what is are car, a truck, people, we can identify bicycles. and usually all of this

information is coming in at once is overwhelming to the driver but we can do this at 360 degrees around the car and the c car can understand it. this is showing how it would potentially appear to the driver. here is the windshield. and in the information cluster we can show it coming up behind the car before it enters our field of view. so we are simulamlating the windshield. as you are driving you can see cars coming up in your blind spot before they pass you. this is also giving you the confidence that the self-driving car understands what is going on around it and it will indicate the path it is going to drive. >> host: we have heard about google's self-driving cars and other larger companies. how is this technology right

here, this book, different? >> we are working with 80 car companies. manufacturing and car companies. using our car computer they are building up the car. we are not building the car. we are the brains going into the car. >> host: this box here -- [inaudible converitatisation] >> there is a lot of processing power in this. this level of performance is 24 trillion operations per second and it would require enough people to fill up the entire room to do that. this system is designed for automotive application.

you notice the radar, the ultra sonic and all of the censors you have on the car respond to that information and they can built a map of where the car should drive safely. [inaudible conversation] >> this is something we are developing closely with the makers. this needs to be a product that goes through certification and there will be regulations to insure it is safe. that is what we are doing. we want to government entities to insure it is uniform. not state by state but at the federal level to insure that vehicle is safe. >> that is why you are up here on capitol hill? >> we have programs going on in other countries we would love to see implemented.

>> host: when you show this to members of congress how do they react? >> people love it. the reality is so people people know people injured from traffic accidents. this technology has the ability to dramatically reduce the number of accidents. this technology is coming fast and we want to make sure we can raise the bar. >> host: how long has the technology been worked on and what is your role? >> i have been working with automotive makers for over a decade. our technology is refined into cars. creating simulators to figure out how to make safer cars. virtual stimulation. even used in virtural reality.

now we have horsepower to make the cars work. >> and are you the ceo of founder? >> my title is senior director of automotive unit. a relative small part of nvidia but it is growing. we have over ten million cars on the road with our technology inside. we are using it for the entertainment screens, the big screen like in the model s or audi or bmw and honda and this is the next wave to create the self-driving technology and dramatically put the systems on the road. >> thank you for talking on "the communicators". danny shapiro with nvidia. thank you.

>> host: 1776. >> yes, sir. >> what is this? >> it a global startup in washington, d.c. and san francisco. it focuses on world chasing startups that are tackling major changes in deep areas of the economy like education, energy, and health care. these are disrupting all of these different factors of the economy and our focus is to help them get the right connection whether it is extra capital, mentorship, policymaker on the hill to media attention. >> host: so would you say you are a funder? >> we provide a whole mix of services for these companies.

we work with a number of these infusions and we invest in companies. >> host: if someone had an idea and they google and 1776 would pop up? is that how it works? >> we are very unique in the sense we focus on startups from highly regulated sectors. these are companies disrupting and pushing government. so you have to start all over the world we are working with. we work with startups in washington, d.c. but all over the globe. we run a global competition around the world to identify the most promising startups. so traveling around the world to find the best companies from africa to silicone valley. we brought two of our companies here today. >> this is kathleen.

>> revel desk sells and combines treadmill desks so you can be more active while working. >> how is that disrupting technology? >> because all people have been doing since the industrial r revolution is sitting in chairs. and technology is part of that with the race of computers, television in homes, commuting in cars. the sitting time has tripled since 1900. we used to have the phrase sit down take a load off because you were running around all day. now, no, we have to build in time for exercise because all we do is sit. we are disrupting the way that technology has caused us to be inactive by saying let's build activity into your work day. >> host: is rebel desk on the market? >> yes, it is for sale on our own website.

we sell the treadmill itself and the desk that goes up and down so you can make it perfect height for you while you walk ft we sell the products together or separately. it is designed just for walking and an office. it doesn't go faster than two miles per hour. very safe. you can walk in your work clothes without working up a sweat or needing to change into your gym outfit. >> host: what is the benefit? how many steps have you done in a day? >> i easily walk four to five miles a day on the rebel desk. even though it is at what is considered a leisurely place. we have people doing as many as 8-9 miles a day. you can use it however you want. stand a little, walk a little, if you need to sit down you can. >> kathleen with rebel desk.

brandon pollack, what else? >> we have one more here. >> this is janice with cross deck. >> it is a productivity software suite geared toward the dod mainly right now. you can see here it a third term product. >> what does it do? >> we are aiming to take the navy's current paper system and make it digital. tomorrow morning, hundreds of thousands of sailors will wake up and start their day by printing out their schedule on a sheet of paper and put it in their pocket. crossdeck keeps it in their pocket and allowing it to be updated as the ever changing

needs happen. we have a perm qualification system as well. a lot of training is pure ear. i might have a qualification i need and you might have a qualification i need and in order for us to both be qualifies we train each other. in the navy, they carry around three-inch binders with pages and signatures and that is how they get qualified. there is no way to track it other than i hand you this binder. we solve that by allowing you to assign digitally. we can track in realtime and make sure on battle ships and marine core units what have you people are qualified in places when they need to be qualified. the idea came from our three founders who are warfare officers. they met each other at the naval

academy and they all saw this need as they served. i came on in september. i am a marine core enlisted guy. i obviously saw the same need in the marine core and thought this a no-brainer and i will join with help. >> dennis weppner of crossdeck. these are a few companies 1776 has put on the board. >> and now joining us on "the communicators" is democratic congress man bonnie rush from illinois. why are you down here at the technology display? >> i sit on the subcommittee on

technology and the internet so i am always amazed at american innovation and these things that can help us save money and also help us to really make our life a lot easier. so i am really excited about the display in terms of your heating system and they can all be controlled by your cellphone. so that is amazing to me. as a matter of fact, i am so excited i cannot wait to get back to my best buy store and go in and invest my money in these improvements. >> host: you are down here more on a personal level than a congressional level? >> i am a consumer. we are all consumer first and foremost.

we are members of congress secondary. so first i am here as a consumer. i meant just excited as a member of congress about the advancement in technology, advance in telecommunication. all of the smart phones and allied instruments are really amazing and making the american people's minds simpler and easier. i tell you one thing that amazes me. when i look at the lights where you have the app and can change the color by moving your finger around it reminded me of the disco. i am old school. so, you know, i had a lot of fun playing with that. but this is amazing.

i am glad that the -- you know, we don't have chance to visit and have hands on kind of interaction usually. so we get to play with the toys here and thes instruments and learn about them and imagine how they could fit into our lives and that is what this really is about. >> you are consumer first and a congressman second, you said. when you look at the technology through a congressional eye is there anything that you think congress can do to support the technology advancements? or to maybe regulate? >> well i don't know if regulation is called for right now. i do believe we need another --

we haven't had a technology bill since 1996. ... our american enemies. taking control of the regulations away from them

and this whole synergy, taking lives over with advancement. looking at it from a different perspective. [inaudible conversation] i know it's old and obsolete so we need to bring nato into the organization. these are some of the things i think about as i walk around here. >> we've been talking on the communicators, the consumer and congressman bobby rush, thank you sir. >> i'll have to bring my wife down . thank you so much. >> now joining us on the communicators is mister simon, tom simon.

we are enabling creators and commerce through our licensing of it. developing databases and data structures around marketplaces with creative content in the right way to sell and multiply. >> it's more talking to somebody in congress and he said they understand so say it again. >> what i would say is for example we are trying to help bring together the kinds of products that creators can make that can then be contacted for rights management and institution purposes like the purchasing itself is a process as challenging. we're making a platform, making it scalable so it can be modified on themarketplace side . >> whoever created this, this is their profits right?

>> this would be the intellectual property . they would have it licensed there. >> they know they have the rightto sell this and the item, without having to worry about somebody taking it down . so they do that, we handle the rights management behind it so we are making it easier for them, marketplaces can focus on selling without the headache of all the hard stuff. >> when you talk about it recognition, what does that mean? >> it's a commendation of both image and recognition and its data that we collected or a trademark database to say this is a perpetual license, that you have to apply for a license. it provides feedback and information so that the creator or the marketplace

knows what they can or can't do with that particularobject and what steps they can take to be able to make it so they can modify it . >> where did the concept come from? >> our founders started a company right low back in the early 2000. they ended up selling that to google and that became the it tube and we were able to check against these for content and create this nice usage so in a lot of ways it's everything apple applicable in the marketplace content base to apply similar principles in a more difficult workflow to find that office to curb that out. >> simon shorts is the name of the company. >> you been watching the communicators, looking at new technology at ces on the hill

in washington. if you'd like to see some of our previous programs, 02 c-span.org. >> tonight on book tv starting at 8:30 p.m., programs about energy. at 8:30 p we see her book about energy and the environment, after that stephen moore and kathleen white" healing freedom: exposing the matter more on energy and just past 10:30, make jacobs and panic at the pump: the energy crisis and the transformation of american politics in the 1970s. >> on saturday, c stands issues spotlight looks at police and race relations. we will show president obama at the memorial service for five police officers shot in dallas. >> when the bullets started flying the men and women of the dallas police, they did not flinch.

and not react recklessly. >> south carolina republican senator tim scott you speech on the senate floor about his own interactions with police. >> the vast majority of the time i was pulled over for nothing more than driving a new car in the long neighborhood or some other reason just as trivial. >> our program also includes one family's story about an encounter with police in washington dc followed by a panel with the city's police chief cathy lanier . >> most people get defensive if they feel like you're being authentic so be very respectful you know, in encounters and requests. if it's not a dangerous situation, requests versus demands. those things change the dynamics a little bit. >> watch our issues spotlight on police and race relations saturday at eight eastern on c-span and c-span.org.

>> next, a discussion about the recent attempt to overthrow the turkish government with recent ambassador to turkey james jeffrey and an author who has written about turkish politics, talk about turkish president erdogan and his purging of government officials allegedly involved in the coup attempt to . >>. [inaudible conversation] good afternoon and welcome to the washington institute. i am rob sat law from the institute and i'm pleased to welcome all of you to our tribal family center for today's event. there's a hell of a lot going on in the middle east. there's a lot going on even before the events of last week in turkey. it bears noting that today and tomorrow the coalition

against the islamicstate is gathering here in washington . that these events are occurring while important events are going on on the ground in syria. including the tightening of the seas on aleppo. an event which regrettably isn't making the headlines giving everything else that's going on. in the world. just this morning the us treasury department announced sanctions on al qaeda leaders operating inside iran. a step which compels us to stretch our imagination about who is part of the problem and who is part of the solution on different aspects of the fight against the islamic state. then of course the events of

last week in turkey. events which are still playing themselves out. events which came on the heel of what happened in nice. which so quickly emerged and then was overtaken by the visuals and the urgency of what happened in turkey. this is not a slow summer, sadly. for what is going on in this neighborhood. i mentioned that just as context for today's discussion because today we are going to do a deep dive into the events of turkey, into the who, what , why, the so what and the what next. but it is important to put

all this into context, not in some grand scheme but day-to-day, real-time context for everything else that is going on. and before today's event is out, i'm sure that my colleagues here will talk about how what is going on in turkey effects and will be affected by everything else that's going on in the neighborhood. we are very fortunate in the washington institute to how i would say two of the most outstanding interpreters of turkish politics, culture, society and framers of the policy issues surrounding turkey and us turkish relations here on our staff

and i think it is just fortuitous that they are both here in this third week of july to be able to offer their insights on what happened, its importance, its relevance and what america should be doing about it . so without further ado, let me introduce my colleague, speaking first will be doctor soner cagaptay. soner cagaptay has been as you all know a remarkably prodigious fixture in helping us understand what is going on in turkey over the past several days. soner is the institutes by her family fellow and director of our turkish research program. he's the author of "the rise ofturkey" , 21st century's first muslim power and i can

only add to that that soner is ... i can add many things to this but in the last several days in addition to all the public advice that soner has given to people around the country and around the world, he has been a source of great and wise counsel to our government in helping it navigate the difficulties of the current situation sitting to soner's left and speaking after him will be ambassador james jeffrey. jim jeffrey is the philip solomon distinguished fellow at the institute. jim came to us after concluding an enormously distinguished career in the us foreign service which included among other things ambassador ships in albania, iraq and of course turkey.

and service as deputy national security adviser in the bush administration. jim has his finger on the pulse of all the policy issues that concern turkey and us turkish and nato relations and i think the combination of having jim and soner address issues related to the turkish coup attempt is really a comprehensive look at everything on this agenda. so with that, i'm going to turn to soner. soner and jim will speak from the podium and then we will move the podium away and have a, quite some time to get into questions and answers without experts. soner?

>> thank you robin good afternoon everybody, i'm pleased to see a lot of familiar names and faces from around town. this is indeed a very sad day for us to have a discussion on turkey. i want to actually start by expressing my deep and profound sadness over the events of the last weekend . i think there are those of us who either were voting in turkey or study turkey, one of the worst images was to see the country's capital which has never been occupied or fallen under authority rule in any time in history debunked by turks so this was in the various plot against the country so what i would like to do is look at what happened, the coup and why it failed and then move on to what it means for turkeys ability and third, look at us policy and what washington ought to do, a little over 10 minutes or so and i'm glad to be joined at this panel by my colleague, ambassador jim jefferies and i'm humbled by that also. clearly what happened was an attack against the constitutional order in

turkey, a coup plot that failed, also a failed assassination attempt against president erdogan and i think this is your implications moving forward for turkey but i would like to tell you how things unfolded last friday. in that regard it's useful to put the events into the context of turkish coups recent and failed cruise. 1997 there was what we call a soft coup, 2007 there was a coup and now there's a new phenomenon. soft coup was when i was actually not a coup, the military rolled into a neighborhood in ankara, issued a declaration warning the government which at that time was an islamist partner. the government took the morning, stepped down and there was no coup , that's why call it a soft coup. there was no takeover, no blood. 2007 the military put a warning on its website warning the government at this time if it didn't work the government would not step down and 2016, very different

than the previous attempt. what i think this was was a factional uprising within the military, factional in the sense that it had from we see from the generals implication 20 percent of the generals involved or somewhere around that figure. a factional uprising that staged itself to look like a coup. hoping that it could overtime harness a critical mass among officers and convert itself into a real coup read that did not happen. it did not go from being a factional uprising to being a coup, it failed so in this sense i think i could call this a counter feed two. counter fees because in both senses of the term because it was made to look like a coup and also it was badly executed as on the various plot. why was it badly executed? it didn't have widespread support. it only had support in the armed forces and it looks like within the air force and to an extent these andarm which is the police for the countryside, sort of like an eatery .

did not have significant support of party which is the largest component of the military, 65 percent of the turkish armed forces of the army and it's also was ill-conceived i think this nefarious plot because although the assassin leaders went to target president erdogan thankfully they were not successful, they missed him but he was able to rise and make it appeal to his followers. the coup plotters were also ill-conceived and ill executed in this to , they miscalculated. they went into a turkish public tv station known as trt. if you are over 16 in turkey this is what you used to watch when you are kid. if you are over 40 you never want this network because it's not even among the most top 20 networks in turkey so erdogan returned, went and picked up his smart phone,did an interview on face time, put it on facebook, called his supporters to rally in the street . i could see it on tv, six and 7 pm, by 7 pm in turkey when

the facetime call went out, the street filled with people. it worked. this is a victory of the digital over the analog, the digital being the smartphone and analog being the idea of going to public tv and having a broadcast message telling people this is a coup. it didn't work. there are reasons why i think the counter feet to did not convert into a real one. the police which was pro-government and under the government of course, 250,000 men strong blocked the gendarme from leaving its barracks and taking over the city so i think they were very influential and it's a matter of numbers. the gendarme is about 600,000 men and women when you take out the air force. when you take out the army which is 65 percent and considering that from other forces also there was limited participation, in terms of numbers there were more people with weapons at the end of the day than there were broken people, even as it was launched as a counter feet effort.

never picked up. at the end i think it's really one of the best analysis on this i've read is by turkish analyst matt and gordon who suggested in his view that there was a core group of officersaligned with the glenn movement and as well as officers not aligned with the glenn movement in this , what he calls a factional insurgency which not only failed but i think also has left a huge trail of bloodshed as well as a very polite arise and deeply divided country. i think there's really moving forward no good outcome of this for turkey. if the coup had succeeded it would have been an oppressive place run by the generals and it would have been a horrible outcome. the coup has failed but turkey is still going to be oppressive on foot unfortunately moving forward. this outcome is still preferable to the outcome of the coup but now the democratic future line ahead. that has a lot to do with the

political strategy of president erdogan who has since 2003 built a cult of personality around him being the authoritarian underdog so erdogan is the underdog who in his view, heportrays himself as the victim . about to be undermined by conspiracies and therefore it's okay for him to crack down on those conspiracies before they undermine him. it has worked because of rallies in 2013, other examples of that. now this theory that there is a conspiracy to undermine erdogan has its legs because there really is a conspiracy. there was a coup plot so supporters are concerned, the threat to overthrow him is more real than ever and this is bad news for turkey's democracy. that gives erdogan a carte blanche first of all and this is how we should see the purges that are continuing of tens of thousands of public officers being fired, thousands being arrested. of course, the government as the legitimate right to go after the cool plotters and i

think in this regard erdogan pc gulen movement to be 100 percent behind the plot and he will treat them the same way to united states treats al qaeda but i think beyond that, erdogan's crackdown will unfortunately extend to democratic dissent and opposition and it's already happening. there's a span for example this morning that came up banning all academics from traveling overseas. i cannot believe that all turkeys out of that academics are pro-áuntran5á so maybe they're trying to figure out what's going on but this is of course going to be a complicated situation going forward in the sense that erdogan supporters will accept oppression as the only way to crack down on future clues and conspiracies and his opponents will find it increasingly difficult to oppose if not impossible to oppose him democratically. going forward i think he will also use it to become an

effective style president, he's now head of state making changes to the constitution to become head of government, prime minister's position, head of ruling party. that would make him the most powerful person in turkey ever since ataturk and arguably as powerful as after created the problem is this new ataturk will be embraced by only half the country and despised by the other half because it's a deeply polarized nature that he has created to get to where he is. i think the coup plotters have taken that one step forward and throw turkey into the abyss so my major take away i think for us government in terms of turkish domestic policy is this is of course an incredibly difficult, real risk for turkey's political system to fracture. for the first time in decades i think we have to look into that. going forward i want to look at implications for us turkey relationships, military cooperation. let me look at military issues first. they are both short term and long-term obligations for turkish military. in the short term this looks as if there's a faction in

the military though erdogan will not now start a review of the turkish military which means that military operations will be frozen for that review to be carried out between us turkey cooperation will occasionally be frozen as an indirect result of that. like this happened over the weekend when flights out of the basewere suspended for about a day . i think it was because the government was trying to make sure the turkish commander of the base would term himself in, who was implicated in the coup plot but in washington the reading was his turkey punishing the united states and i think that is the perception turkey has to avoid as it does reveal for military going forward. gulen who is a muslim cleric who lives in new york and has a permanent residence, he believes the movement is 100 percent behind the plot. turkey will fast-forward his

extradition and this will become a dominant issue and the us should treat that case seriously. my friend and colleague jim has more to say on this but i think turkey should also do its share as the us treats this case seriously and not link gulen extradition with continuing us turkish cooperation against isis. if turkey sticks to those issues it will backfire. if it presents us government with the choices with either you extradite gulen or we will not cooperate, the us government in which i think there's already in certain circles a dim feel of the erdogan's administration may just go to the operation from elsewhere. that doesn't help turkey so the idea is to keep separation of these issues. at the core, continue with strong turkish us cooperation, and actually increased cooperation. my recommendation for the turkish government is to improve counter isis operation and push on a separate channel for the extradition of gulen so these are seen as separate. in the long-term the turkish military will bleed talent.

nearly a quarter of the generals have been implicated. the air force will be tripled, it will lose hundreds of pilots, the fourth most implicated in the coup. it takes $4 million to train an f-16 pilot so that has big ramifications for turkey going forward. turkey will eventually raise that talent again but it will take a while so that the midterm impact. the long-term impact is the military hitherto the most respected and trusted institution the country is now unfortunately going to see a freefall in its respectability. in a country who is already divided and polarized into two camps, supporters and opponents of president erdogan re: police went along the 50 percent line. this could not be worse than the military's exit as the only national common ritual

that all turks participate in and i think this has ramifications because the event will erode governmental and public support for the military. with implications for the military spending but also turkey as a key us security partner. what is my main foreign-policy take away moving forward? >> the mood in ankara is very dark, very nervous and angry. the reason for that, there is still as far as i know this morning the assassination team which went to erdogan is still out there somewhere in southwestern turkey. still unaccounted for. this is in the hinterland of the western tourist range so you can understand the sensitivity in ankara that this is not yet over. there's even some who believe that washington is behind the

coup because gulen lives in the united states. most pro-government papers are running daily columns by the most prominent colonists suggesting it. for the first time in recent memory i think there's serious discussion about turkey's nato membership and not in washington but in ankara the cause people are looking at this and i think keep in mind forthcoming, putin and erdogan are meeting first week of august. i think putin will basically, iferdogan were contemplating leaving nato , putin would use this meeting to say we will take you in and don't worry about our past incidents, we will get along so us foreign-policy has to take into account the emotional and fragile nature of the turkish elite in ankara. turkey can take knee-jerk moves including on nato. putting together that and the potential moment with russia, there's a chance that president erdogan could tilt toward europe eurasian-ism in its foreign policy, the school which could be prominent. i think might take away with foreign-policy for what america can do is to tread carefully and show turkey attention and care means being tough, really tough and if you need any examples you can go to my op-ed on erdogan's transgressions but

at the same time keeping the nato issue out. i will end with this and i know jim has a lot more to weigh in on turkey as well as what the us should do so thank you again for coming thank you very much soner, very useful. [applause] jim. >> thank you rob. welcome everybody. picking up on what soner said, i want to see a few points about where we are now looking at this from the outside and where if you were all sitting in the white house or the department of state how this would look. or might look, and what to do about it. first of all, as soner said, the number one victor in all of this so far by an extraordinary margin is the president.

erdogan has gained in norma's power and at least in the part of the population that supports them, and almost legendary status by having escaped the team sent out to get him, flowed through the skies and was almost shot down supposedly and he turned the whole thing around himself with this message from the cell phone. given this power he's going to use this first of all to try to ensure that nothing like this happens again and secondly to build up further his power which has been his goal since he entered politics a long time ago. what we are seeing right now which is up to the present and limited primarily to the bureaucracy, uniformed and civilian and involves the sort of arrests and suspensions that are not frankly uncommon in turkey

although the mass that we had seen appears to be really something new at least since the 1982. in addition, erdogan has just completed a meeting of the nationalsecurity council. they took some decisions that are supposedly major and they're going to run those by the cabinet . before announcing them but probably they will empower the government to take even further actions to use even more authority to secure control and ensure that nobody pulls a crew like this. the motives are mixed between gaining more power on the one hand and defense or protecting oneself on the other. meanwhile, at the same time in the streets, erdogan and his political apparatus in the ak party constantly urging crowds to go out and continue their sort of people power that we saw that was so effective on the evening of the 15th in stopping the

military units that were deployed. there are three motivations for potential motivations for what we are seeing unfold right now in turkey. one is that the gulen movement which certainly was widespread in the judiciary and to some degree in the police may be really very, very extensive throughout the bureaucracy. no one really knows because of the difficult nature of penetrating that organization. it's a cultlike organization like many other organizations in the middle east and elsewhere and it's very difficult to see how far its tentacles have spread so it might be that it is a real rationale for rounding up all these people because many of them maybe to one or another

degree involved in the gulen plot. another motive maybe certainly there is a gulen movement, there is a gulen plot, there was a gulen movement in the coup but essentially the government is spreading the net very very widely to get rid of anybody who it sees as even a potential ally of gulen. that is, if you are not in a verifiable way my friend, you may be potentially my enemy so perhaps it's best to send you home or send you to prison. that's the second motivation. the third one is as erdogan said, the day after this is a gift from heaven. he sees this as an opportunity to expand his power and by encouraging the bureaucracy of people who are not on team erdogan because

if you really do get rid of all these people permanently and bear in mind that we cannot know yet. in turkey there's a long tradition of people being arrested, people being sent home, people being dismissed and they come back but if it's different this time, who's going to fill these slots to mark i'm pretty sure it will be people who are very loyal and supportive to erdogan. regardless of what motivation of these three is driving what we are seeing unfold in front of us, this creates major problems for turkey and major problems for its relationships with the us and the rest of the west. for turkey, as soner said the divisions inside this society, there is no unifying principle that can organize everybody beyond the initial let's hope this doesn't work. people will perceive what erdogan and the government are doing from the wrong point of view that they have

perceived erdogan and the akp for the last 13 years and for about half the population perhaps they did more. that's a negative perception so you're going to have a widening of the split in this society.you've already seen downward movement on standard of poise, you're going to have an economic impact of this. typically these things are short-term but over time turkey where the rule of law has been called more into question, the court cannot be trusted to be independent and the country has got considerable internal turbulence, it's not a good bet for the sort of 21st-century economic development that turkey has profited from and very much needs so that's the second problem.the third one that will impact us directly here is human rights violations, gentlemen, serious questions

about rule of law and how it is being applied and what we seen so far and what we may be seen going forward and that's going to be a major problem between washington and the rest of the nato countries and turkey. we've already seen this in statements by secretary kerry and president obama in the call the president just made with erdogan. included cautioning him about violating rule of law challenging the media and other things. the problem with this is that we've been doing this for years with erdogan and he doesn't listen. there is no leverage effectively over erdogan. there wasn't before, there isn't now on the part of the west. turkey is too important and the other fights we have in the middle east beginning with isis, beginning with the arabian problem, beginning with syria and on and on are

two fundamentally important to the region and to international peace and turkey is so central to this that the administration has only limited options. in general our options in terms of getting countries that are serious about taking domestic courses of action to change those courses have been limited almost any place and in turkey they've always been extremely limited and thus the united states has, is going to have to be very open, very frank and stand up for its values in terms of what we say publicly. how we will instrumental lies that, how we will get turkey to actually listen to us is a different question and that's going to be hard because our turkey believes that we need turkey more than turkey needs us. it's a two-sided dependency but nonetheless this is a very dicey. and it's going to be very tough so i believe the administration has handle it well but every day of the new

will, that could push this thing over the edge and again, not all of it will be mistakes on washington. there is a long tradition in turkey that predates this government and this leader of blaming the united states for anything that goes wrong anywhere in turkey or in the area around turkey, those of us that work with the turks get used to that. we never liked it but it came with the territory. but you can push this too far. the problem with that is the environment, the problem is a habit and you saw very stock warning by terry kerry when we refuse by the minister of labor by being behind the coup that when you are used to bashing the united states in vague ways for everything and anything that has happened to your country, you can push that too far one day and then something really bad happens and there's a real hit in therelationship and we are close to that point right

now and that's why this is so serious . the particular sensitive issue is for fethullah gulen and the extradition request. the turks have finally said something in according to the administration but what it is, it was an electronic message of some sort, whether this meets the specific requirements of the expedition formula in the treaty between us and turkey, we don't know at this point and the us will have to look at it. there are several problems with any extradition treaty, i'm nonexpert on the subject in general but i've had to deal with a number of them. first of all, there will be the quality of the evidence provided. there are three steps basically to this. first of all, the administration has to look at whatever comes in and says does this meet the requirements of the treaty?

is, does it have the seal of approval? is it grip clearly prosecution evidence and that kind of thing, does it meet the administrative treaty requirements. then it goes to us court where it is processed in accordance with the agreement and in accordance with the us legal system. then if the person is extradited, that person goes to turkey and he or she is put before a court. based upon the formula or based upon the requirements in the extradition treaty. the problem is too full. first of all to the extent turkish authorities appear to be playing fast and loose with the rule of law and with the independence and integrity of the court system, the stuff that comes in itself could be considered either by people within the administration or by the us courts as tainted. secondly, even if procedurally and in terms of what is presented on paper , it's okay, the courts and

potentially the administration will have to consider with this person be subject to a free trial if this person were sent to the country that asking for the extradition. as the foreign minister of turkey the other day said, we don't really need evidence. obviously it's the gulen and send them to us. that is the kind of thing that would bode well for a quick resolution of this crisis. from the standpoint of how that plays into our foreign-policy with turkey, to the extent possible that we can simply swallow our own concerns as an administration and get this thing into the court and let the courts decide, that would be better because it would be ... regardless of the justification, disastrous i

think if the administration said this just isn't a good enough case, were not going to let the court adjudicated, were just going to turn it down read the president and secretary kerry have made commitments to the turkish government that they will process this thing, they will look at it. they've been cautious but nonetheless it's important that we not get this wrong. one example i can cite as recently and it was hard for the german government, president erdogan did a defamation case under german law against a german cartoonist and angle of merkel had to make the decision because there is a german law basically alleging against heads of state, she decided that her authorities would follow back to the courts which is what they done now. this diffuse major crisis as a sensitive time between turkey and germany. we have to look at this in a cold-blooded way within the

framework of our basic values and what legally doable but nonetheless this is an extremely important country. it is in a very delicate, very sensitive phase and people need to be very careful once again, thank you. >> very good. [applause] questions about what happenedand the implications of what happened. if i could just begin with a couple of questions to my colleagues . why now? what was the trigger? is there a trigger?is there any particular reason why the coup plotters believe that the third week of july was when they had to act. was there some reason, some trigger for all this? >> some of it seemed to have to do with various

transitions in the military including the alleged leader of the coup, and air force general named booster who had supposedly been ahead of the air force, then replace but kept on as a member of a high military counsel and was going to lose his leadership and go into real retirement so he would lose his base entry badge and his communications and all the other things that helped him carry this out. there were also apparent concerns that the intelligence agency was tracking many of these people and that either that investigation would be finished and action would be taken or in some cases some of these offices through the normal rotation process which tends to happen or it usually happens at the end of the

summer would be replaced and they no longer would have control over the units and the forces that we saw used in this operation so it's hard to say but that seems to be one of the explanations. also quickly, i agree with jim in terms of timing. by the time i came up with this cover proof, by the way borrowed from a friend of mine , one of the reasons i think this counterfeit to did end up not working is because it was carried out at a time when we don't do cruise meaning 10 pm, if you are doing the coup, many 101, it's 3 am in the morning when everybody's at bed. 10 pm and istanbul, everybody's outside so far that was media reports that was discovered, relatedto erdogan and the coup plotters decided to pull it out from 3 am to 10 pm and that made all the difference . he was awake when he made the call, they followed up with that so i think that played into the ill-conceived and

ill executed nature but in addition for that dimension in my presentation, i think the fact that the first army did not come on board was a huge factor, this is turkey's most sophisticated army base in istanbul. first commander said this is not a coup and i think that was a message to the rank-and-file and the turks, of course that was a big factor and i think it had impact also. >> the first commander is usually the next commander of the army and commander of the joint chiefs so therefore he is someone who speaks with extraordinary authority particularly within the ground forces. >> one of the remarkable aspects about the events in turkey was the unanimous support for the elected government by all the turkish opposition parties who normally can't agree with the elected government on anything. >> soner, could you say something about this? about how erdogan has we

acted to the opposition parties since receiving their support at his hour of need? >> i think that was probably with all the bad news we talk about one of the most positive takeaways, that there was unanimous support in favor of democracy even as the coup seemed to be working area on some level, bridges had been blocking istanbul, the city was cut in half area there was the website of the turkish chief of staff had been hijacked and there was a memorandum they're saying there is a coup so there was a lot of reasoning to think there was a coup. all four parties in the parliament issued declarations saying they were against it. a major civil society organization including turkey's chief business lobby came out against it read social media was abuzz with antitumor messaging and much of that ironically came from erdogan's opponents who have

cracked down violently. there was unanimous support against this and that shows that the social media that erdogan has tried to shut down was the main mobilizer of the anti-coup effort. his message was put on the internet thanks to social media, erdogan was saved largely. i think he also recognizes that moving forward in terms of rights and liberties and he has been nicer to the opposition in terms of his commentary and the head of the main opposition party cet leader was invited to appear on public prt for the first time in six years. he said wow, it had to take a coup for him to get on there so this would be a great opportunity for erdogan to appear as a unifier of the country but right now it doesn't seem to be the case because i think we are still seeing a divisive figure who says us versus them and that's very dangerous because now you are seeing his

supporters believe there was a conspiracy and they are angry, they are both scared and angry, that's the right word and his opponents are intimidated because they know they are going in for a rough ride. >> just lastly, jim before i turn to questions from everyone here, i just want to pressure you a bit more on this question of how the us deals with all the competing interests here. first, given the trouble in the turkish military, what you think is going on on outside when we count on the turks so much for so many aspects of our counter isis campaign. you think we can continue to rely on their role in this even in the near term? even in the longer term, let alone in the near term? >> up to present, the turkish

active role in the fight against isil has been limited. at times they been engaging in artillery duels along the border. they conducted some stripes including after the istanbul airport attack but they're not a major player so therefore it isn't, it wouldn't be like assembling a to incur bill and suddenly we are wondering whether the 100,000 murder would hold the line. it's nothing like that. they need to turn the lights back on at interlake so we can fly and i think they've done that so the basic support functions in the turkish military is very competent. the vast majority of people in the military a week ago are still in the military. they've moved some 6000 people out of a force of two thirds of million people so i don't think that's a concern. one, that's the second good newsthat we've had so far in

this discussion over 40 minutes . >> very good. let me turn to questions from you if you could just be kind enough when i do identify you, i will call you or wait for the mic, identify yourself. lots of people in the room so keep your questions brief and direct them to one of my colleagues. we will start over here with milton on my right. >> aside from this being perhaps really a power play on the part of elements of the military, do we have any indication what would have been the policy, excuse me. the policy implications had the coup succeeded? what would have been different or is it inside politics entirely? >> this coup even if it were

a real coup, if everybody followed soner's advice and gotten the first army and other things, in the manual, this wouldn't have worked. this too would have led to, it wouldn't have been a repeat of 1980 where everybody was saying who can suddenly come in and end this chaos that is our country today and they were saying this for six months as thousands of people died in street battles between right and left and then the army came in andsaid well, that answers that, now we can go back to sleep .nobody, even the people who wanted to see a different solution to turkey's political problems didn't think they were in the middle of an exit stencil crisis on the night before this occurred so you didn't have a population that was searching, seeking some sort

of military intervention to end this horror. half the population were perfectly happy and that's important, people who were supporting erdogan and secondly those people including much of the police would have resisted. so you wouldn't have gotten again, a repeat of 1980. you would have gotten somethingthat looks more like . today. if the people rise up against an armed force regardless of how powerful in the syrian armed forces in 2011 where hundreds of thousands of strong, you're going to have a civil war, not quite situation so in terms of what the coup plotters were assuming they could control everybody wanted to do, that we don't know and that also hinges on the degree to which this was truly a gulenist plot as opposed to a classic military elitist plot. there seems to be significant but not really hard evidence so far that this was a

gulenist influenced plot by officers who were part of his movement. but what gulen for people who thought they were thinking and speaking in his name on it, that's not clear to us because that's not been what that movement was seeking to do. they were seeking to infiltrate and try to influence governments in their directions to protect their people and go after their enemies but not actually run the country. >> can you give, soner, jim, can you give us the 32nd primer on what the gulen movementreally wants , what is their worldview and how is it different from the islamist oriented worldview of erdogan? >> okay, before that i wanted to tack on. >> changed the topic. >> turkey would have decided

to go to civil war had the coup succeeded so they got it did not and i'm wondering whether this was the intended or the unintended consequence of the plot had the coup plotters had envisioned it. >> it was extremely dangerous, it was extremely horrible. i think i'll take more of a recent view of the gulen movement. blood feudis the right word. there were allies previously for nearly a decade . erdogan and the gulen movement, they worked together. ironically about a decade ago, alleging a coup plot so they were in the case against the military so if the gulen is against this coup, the people would have carried out a coup in this case but that's been the tone for a few years in which a quarter of the military's active duty generals were locked up. then the military through its hands up in the air and threw

in the towel and said erdogan, we go with you.we accept full control of the government and that's why a lot of people ruled out the possibility of a coup post 2010 when the military agreed to go with erdogan as a leader and not challenge him. that's why i think the analysts were not predicting as such it so it does not make sense this is not a coup per se but an insurgency . this is if indeed the movement is behind us and erdogan believes that is 100 percent the case and many turkish analysts that i have spoken to say that analysis provides some fact that the officers aligned with the gulen movement were a big part of the clue plot, perhaps the backbone of it together with non-áuntran5á officers to suggest that this blood feud has become a blood feud. it's really going for gulen and it's taken a serious nature. as far as president erdogan is concerned this is not over yet because not only are

there assassination crews unaccounted for, i think until this morning he had not gone back to ankara although the plot was put out last saturday so it shows the country is still not stabilized and i think what we are seeing this counter coup which was put in place to effectively cut out the coup is still not over. still continuing as we are doing this event and turkey is living for this incident and erdogan has not made his final move. >> yes sir. >> mike, right behind you. >> thank you. thank you ambassadors. i'm the director of the turkey project at brookings and i have a question to address and maybe also to soner. we've heard a lot of the glennis and soner pointed out as well as that they may well be behind us. you elaborated on the complexities, difficulties associated with the

exhibition issue with which i totally agree but is there something else that the united states could do? could it be possible that the us government and its resources could really help the turkey side and investigate where does the gulenist did play a role in this or not. if they could do this it would help a lot of confidence building and after all this is an nato ally so i would think if a nato ally collapses american national security is impacted also absolutely. aside, the specific nature of an expedition issue itself, it's so legal and technical and so judicial that it tends to dominate and of course turkish officials have weighed this thing and hit us over the head with it but again they did that at various points years ago when there wasn't a coup and when they weren't even thinking of

preparing an extradition case, they were saying why don't youextradite gulen to us , you are not good nato ally and we said where's your request and they would say, it was sort of a game. it's not a game anymore. this was a very serious, very bluntly effort to overthrow the government. there are lots of indications that points to the gulenist movement. it's hard given what we know about these movements in general to think and all the movement and not a leader. that doesn't mean that he is guilty of anything. it doesn't mean there's enough evidence to indicate that he can be extradited. he is a green card holder so it's not that he's here on some kind of refugee or other status that can be changed. and the united states has to be very careful because of constitutional issues in our

own system. on the other hand you are right, this is an important nato ally and if this guy is responsible for actions against that nato ally, that say, then a, that's a very worrisome thing but be, there should be information. the president and terry both promised intelligence and other investigatory support. there are things that we can do that the turks can't do and there's information we may have access to. i suspect that will be part of the cooperation. we also cantake , there are various steps us government can and has taken in the past to stop anyone including american citizens from playing unhappy rolls and other countries internal affairs and some of that has never been deployed against gulen because it has never come up again , the whole

gamut of actions we can take to try to show that we are enthusiastically concerned about this regardless of what is happening now in turkey, regardless of where erdogan wants to take this place eventually . there was a very serious and very violent attempt to overthrow a friendly governments democratic establishment and a lot of indications point towards pennsylvania so that has to be looked at. and that has to be taken seriously. i think it will bless unlike anything else in the us government, if it doesn't get top level attention it will die a death of 1000 cuts. >>

>> >>. >> there is a difference between what i am asking you and it is very early, but al least as i understand it a moderate reform and actually putting this on the glen in pennsylvania to be extraordinarily cautious per call to you think they can make that connection? san to reinstitute the death

trap? the european union has already complained about that but that is throughout the course. >> again i am on denies talking about the buildings but if you introduce the death penalty to make a retroactive, i would think that would have been as an influence on anybody at any level in the united states with a legal interpretation of what type of an institution you are sending a resident alien american back to. but from what i know about that movement is every and other movement that has been counted in the middle east

these are things like a secular humanist, so i agree with him or her. these are called like organizations we saw how tightly organized the muslim brothers were in egypt. but in reading some of the confessions several already released by army officers, it sounds a lot like this was highly organized, highly networked in this is where the authorities that is here in the state's. >> looking at the death penalty we could see a return the last time turkey

executed anybody was 1981 after the coup there was a moratorium after that then is eliminated the penalty from the books as part of the secession process but that would lead automatically end the process can number two that will pave the way as a swing to the right with the suspension of rights and liberties of news clips will probably be out soon as a way to target with a wider turkish society. this is one of the of the outcomes unfortunately in to

embrace the oppression and it will be great to be merged but the chances of that are zero. >> i will take a handful of questions. >> i heard secretary kerry say that our democracy of behavior of the turkish membership of nato. >> not to diminish then near-death experience but does any of this rhetoric

for the united states have anything to do with the syrian policy? or meetings said u.s. for policies in partnership with russia? >> very good. we will do another round. >>. >> my question is the possible effect in i have seen two schools of thought. one that comes out against the coup in that was

reconcile the short time before another school of thought says he will actually dash. >> so we have questions of russia and israel. >> secretary kerry is people say that it was misinterpreted in dennis since that is true but that could be interpreted but this is fantasy land. live never expel the country from nato and discourse cato live happily for decades portugal or spain so i don't

think that this is in the cards but the question of turkey in the e.u. and is it under this government as part of the western values system? >> this is not the e.u. may do is a security club in any event those countries where it through dictatorships and to in the '90s it was something different but i now think this is other than a nato membership but these two are separate.

and though these anti-american comments have anything to do with the trauma i face gaunt turkish israel we are moving forward trying to give a semblance of business as usual the foreign minister is going to come because you want to continue with business as usual. >> there is many other things to stir up so it will have to stay in reserve for the moment. >>. >> so far not a single woman has put up her hand. please don't be bashful.

>> from defense department to egypt we know that the overthrow of the overthrow of egypt how will this issue impacting our relations with turkey in the future? >> yes. in the far back. please. >> please identify yourself. >> americans for peace i say that as my expertise but not a turkey. i do not feel you gave me enough facts which i know is

a movement that comes out of his long and charitable organizations that i would criticize him for being 75 but not in good condition from reorganization run from the top down. i just feel that you mentioned the is lots of evidence that makes me want to say surely there are people involved not supporters of government i need more information. >> please let's get some more questions up front.

>> 70 says that is similar to iran but 20 years ago in of that conference don't you think that problem is san incident? and populism. if you think that we have to think much deeper.

>> formerly of the u.s. treasury department your impressions of the turkish intelligence services. >> canada last question? >> maybe. [laughter] i am not a woman. >> could you both give us some idea of the impact of these are addressed on various institutions in turkey with the educational

system? >> those egypt institutions the real prosecution that is even deeper than we think. >> can he is much wiser than i am. >> with egypt the relationship is driven by that deep hostility with the erdogan but now those, they would feel toward each other the next time they're in the same room. there was some talk of the rapprochement but it is very difficult for those two leaders to be in the same room.

but those russian ties will normalize the regarding the movement that analysis and i have read suggest that they brought directed by them so that is the turkish government to make the case. but clearly this is the consensus there seems to be a large cadre of officers or the back of with that attempt with the government. there was actually thinking of another country year earlier that that looks like the yen peas full version of belgium. nothing to do with each other.

and they don't talk to each other into deep politicize the military use still have a divided belgium and it is still overtaken by isis so that polarization will take a negative turn because of the already lost its institution said now it was targeted in the last six months there could be similar attacks going forward with everybody's crackdown in the impact on turkish society. of course, the military will be targeted but there would

also create a witch hunt that its ramifications that would get them fired so so to prosecute those are behind the curve and it will become even less pronounced. tandon intelligence that we found out that if teeeighteen is doing a laugh at the end of the day but

many of the talks are those uttered not sympathetic but that doesn't prove the case either. i do have firsthand information but i lived in turkey at the time working with all kinds of people where the movement in the court system unleashed a rapid campaign against military leadership that it was the second case sledgehammer that in looking at the evidence this was almost deliberately observed evidence where you could see by basic forensics dated months after it was supposed to occur with the senior

military officers that were close to erdogan as the legal machinery that would roll over to put the managerial with me and other people. and erdogan visited him in a hospital if he doesn't do that very often to signal how unhappy he was with the whole thing but he was dealing with an organization of the judiciary and answering to a central command and control. in to do things out were absolutely repugnant so if

it falls apart is intelligence cooperation is needed and can be done in doesn't get as much out of politics but the one thing that does impact fact if the intelligence service falls out of favor with the government than regardless of what they get to generate themselves, typically from other countries there is more skepticism with a tendency to go off in do-it-yourself intelligence

so that i n a possibility ted says resilience. even with those replacement leaders end if that is clear , but you have to be on the team 8kp to get the hit. and to make turkey as successful. >> friends you can see how people are remaining riveted because of the situation in the analysis.

the middle east we'll be back in the headlines i'm sure regrettably before long. [inaudible conversations] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> when the bullets started flying

they did not flinch >> but the vast majority of the time i was bowled over for nothing more than driving a new car in the wrong neighborhood for no other reason. >>. >> most people get defensive if they feel you are being offensive. to be very respectful with request verses demand changes the dynamics a little bet.

>> your argument to with the consolidated cases. >> mr. chief justice of to please the court dealt

sister's face the deliver a dilemma of the freedom restoration act they can adhere to their religious beliefs to pay millions of dollars of penalties or take steps that they believe would be religiously it morally objectionable that the government deems necessary for them to provide contraception coverage through their health care plans. if the government concedes the sincerity of these beliefs and it will recast those of the objection of opting out and with all due respect that is demonstrably not true. >> explained to me that analogy of the military objector string of for the many felt then a genuine belief that if they registered as a pacifist that doesn't mean other people would have to serve.

many did ago because of this belief. or less important to pay a financial penalty. >> i will stick with a conscientious objector become as the way to analyze that case is to say there is clearly a substantial burden. so for those of the conscientious objector. >> stop there. to the extent that the conscientious objector as somebody but if you are

looking at it in terms of scrutiny, of the government sends out how many notices for people to come and serve? >> do you really think it makes a difference if it knows whether or not one person will not show up? >> that would be very difficult to administer that type who didn't even know about the objection or could not take steps on the government's part. >> or who is eligible or not how does the system work? >> two things.

this is where the government will provide an exemption but they have to tell the government there church plan somebody has to tell the government who was eligible were not that is the difference. >> that just isn't true with respect to the churches better integrated and religious orders to only engaged in religious activity with factually there is that distinction but more important i would distinguish between the situation and somebody has the objection into opting now taking a fully independent steps with a conscientious objector from objects to objecting on a form where deal the way they can object is the name of somebody else who was draft eligible.

>> you began the government is characterize your position of was in quite sure where that argument was taken. could you begin again? part of the reason you know, that is they're not shy about objecting. but there were making a mistake of those that are purely religious and i clients little sisters could not qualify because they serve the elderly and poor on a nondenominational basis. in filing a notice that was necessary to comply.

>> what is and they did just object. >> guide to object to objecting because that will make it easier that is a perfectly understandable thing to say that is more a part of my sincere religious belief you have to say that is a substantial burden. >> but first of italy qualify as a substantial burden if the requirement was in force with nasa penalties that is a rare situation. >> and if they are just objecting just to object of the religious belief because that will make it more

likely to fill the slot to take efforts to provide contraception the right way to understand that hypothetical. >> but it is a hypothetical directly implicated by your theory of the case. your theory of the case that everything depends of a percent coming and was connected to think that is our position the security of the religious belief it is conceded to the nuclear but the substantial burden analysis with the millions of dollars of penalties that were at issue at hobby lobby >> you're not answering the question. >> i am trying with respect if everything else is the

same that is part of the analysis and of our objection contrary to fact is where we absolutely object if you cut and a government provides this service through the exchange's of the policy from the overarching policy but we would lose under the second half of the rifra analysis. >> with that answer if a person had a sincere religious belief with a forum of complicity than that would control you have to go to the second part of the analysis is very compelling interest? but objecting to objecting

is not the difference at all but it is distinguishable from the hypothetical is not objecting to object. one way to understand this is what was the opt out form one was authorization my client had no objection to sign that. >> i am understand that factual extinction but that doesn't matter with your own legal analysis. >> it doesn't matter on this court's precedents to serve the right the opinion there is a fact that the government demands more than the objection and forces it to end the reality they will hijack our health plan to provide coverage against our

will. >> but what i don't understand is when many -- any government law claims their burden is ever substantial because every believer that has ever come before us including the people of the military think that my soul will be banned i'm not saying that is a substantial perceived personal burden but how do we have a government that functions? hagel we have anything that can demand that people to objecting? so that isn't a problem? >> the first is what you say about the government not being able to function under

substantial burden and with the alternative analysis is exactly what was said in the court. justice o'connor took a different view with say healthy debate but there is no question. >> is there recited that is settled that we're not asking to do something except identify yourself and who will do the action is either the government or the third party it is the balance that we struck somebody else will do the act you are objecting to. >> with a third-party action , your right is not a substantial burden the with the government says in its

pages 87 through 89 that we raise our hands to opt out we need additional information, and they require more. >> who are they? >> to have the independent contract then it has an independent obligation. >> that is true if and only if it isn't just the information on the form it treats as an authorization with a self insured plan. >> but the law of regulation

requires if it is yes or no i fill out the form i do not authorize or permit it does not make the difference. >> it makes all the difference if we don't provide that forum than that coverage doesn't grow. if we don't provide the form in these cases and as a result that has not flowed and it is most of obvious with respect that the government thinks it needs something from us. >> because the government has another interest at stake the went to be clear because this is not involved do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the belief of your client and all the others any more of the

belief of the parent. so inanities cases it is not an issue. of these compelling interest that was largely ignored. so it cannot be all my way it has to be the accommodation. >> i agree that doesn't mean it is a meet -- a view from rifra what they gave my clients is what they get a 345,000 churches and the auxiliaries of the religious orders they gave that

accommodation to might climate we with allotted before they wanted. but the problem is we have to fill out a form and the consequence to fill that out is we will be treated very differently from the other religious and players. >> you talked about self insured plans is that the case the fourth for the notice to hhs becomes a plan instrument? >> it does because the government thinks that our notification is the equivalent of the 700 form and the reason they require that you did erasure here to tell the government i object to send the form directly to the insurer that they'd then treated as the permission

slip as coverage. >> that is not out. >> but the alternative is now we can file an objection the government treats exactly the same way. they take our objection then they provide that to the third-party administrator that becomes every bit as much as a planned document. with all due respect is a little rich for the government to say don't worry about this when they're holding interest is in terms of seamless coverage. if it is seamless until the end user then it is the eric irrational belief.

>> is it the essence of your argument that the contraceptive coverage is done through the insurance? >> that is a fair description and the only problem the government has is that the health plan is intangible is the consequence of us filing the form to come into one of the little sisters homes to set up shop and pay rent and day operated a clinic out of the home, i think everybody would understand of the coverage is provided on our promises. if it is more intangible i don't think that principle is a different. >> with your clients you on complicity?

do we just accept your view whether or not that is the least restrictive? >> that is the role the your courts have had because they don't want to get into the role. that isn't just a hobby lobby decision that goes back to thomas if you remember you had the religious adherents and the objection and there was another jehovah's witness in the record who said he did not object to that it was not that big of a deal but this specifically says we're not in the business to refereed those disputes or to figure out or second-guess if he hindustan's. here you have a ton of amicus brief love for the jews believe setter at issue for the little sisters that

are not idiosyncratic as a matter of faith but that is the matter to get into. >> you finished? >> yes i am. >> you must have thought about this question. i will assume for purposes of the question it is just a matter of signing a form of objection it is a health care plan of major ways all kinds of things and topping the icing on the cake over the edge of the you have to say i object contact my employees, so putting that all together, now a protected by rifra?

>> the reason the court went to smith is because they couldn't figure out how to apply that. this is at least one difficulty. for religious purposes i am trying to find out something to be a member of society. sometimes of a religious person is a member of society he will accept all of those things the quakers to object to vietnam. the to the subject to blasphemy or shoveling snow of the sidewalk to the abortion clinic for the christian scientist the child will go to the

hospital to receive medical care that is against their religion i am just giving you for. there is no question that doesn't violate the religious clauses but plenty of other things to. what is the line? why do the quakers have to pay taxes for vietnam? but you don't find the religious muslim orgy you getting an extra day off during the week when the losses there is a sabbath on saturday. what is the light? i have been reading to find a simple statement on what that is and that is what rifra does but that does not help me. so when i would say to you are exactly right it was a

much more administrable world but here is the way you worked that to draw is there a substantial burden on religious exercise? if i was trying to claim an attack. >> but the quaker that wasn't a substantial burden? >> but there is work to be done on the second half of the test and there are some obvious differences between a regime for the government has shown that they cannot opt out. it is to universal then you come in a case like this the government and south carolina ordeal looked at the objectors what that point the whole system collapsed it was not a persuasive argument hear

they take care of their churches or the religious organization like the little sisters. they have demonstrated this is an easy case. >> the government here has the same interests that it had to every other employee he doesn't get contraceptive coverage from the employer base plan but all others that furthers the interest in other ways. it needs to prove that it is insufficient but the sum total of their showing is limited to less than one column of one page of the federal registry. that is insufficient for the government to demand like catholic charities in

engaged in conduct. instead what we have is a religious employer definition that is a full blown exemption. to organizations even if they don't object about contraception coverage retreat identical organizations differently. >> are you suggesting then any other organization religious the oriented the government cannot treat the church to those religious organizations.

>> no. but in this case if you look at what the government has done in particular that is the line that congress has drawn where the churches and houses of worship law the way the clients are treated the same here the government's entire line is drawn with tax law where they define those. >> but it doesn't have to. but it is also protected the religious oriented organization is protected but not at the same level. >> i don't think they can do that in the context of this regime or at the church with the house of worship. >> is that the say with the

university? >> yes if you look at how congress has drawn the line they get the title xii exemption. >> then your is ring to the affirmative give it to the church that is your position. >> not quite the problem is and pass to draw a definition that is coherent and rational but that doesn't apply when you carry it over when the churches and universities and the sisters of the port file their return. >> would be very difficult for this court to write an opinion whichever church organization they have to do this they might find that very difficult to write. >> we're not suggesting that the when the government has the same interest as all the

employees that don't get coverage from the employer base plan not just a grandfather plans but self-employed or the unemployed or those of foreign businesses the government has the same interest. >> it was a very strong tradition in this country when it comes to be excluded churches are special but somewhere along the line that says there's something very special about the churches themselves if you say every time congress gives an exemption to churches or synagogues or mosques and they have to open that up for all religious people then what if congress decides not to give the exemption at all? that is why people are a strong supporters because of

the mortal danger that it poses. >> just to be clear i am not suggesting whenever you give the exemption to reach turgid past to apply to all other religious organizations but when the government has the same interest to religious and secular employees or those of small businesses the government will further that interest to all those employees whether the affordable care act, and title ted, medicare, medicaid at a minimum it needs to explain why it is sufficient for all those other employees. >> many statutes are transitional and those that treats small enterprises differently. are you saying once the

government recognizes the exemption then that's it? the floodgates opened is an exemption for the very small business. >> not at all but i am saying they said you cannot discriminate on the basis of race unless there is the previous example the you to maintain that policy as long as you don't change that that that would undermine the purpose of title seven that is a type of exemption with a contraception mandate >> couldn't the executives surveyed employees of churches and religious nonprofits and categories of religious nonprofits the little sisters that the big university to determine the

percentage of employees who are members of the religion and draw a distinction among those groups based on a survey? >> they could do that justice alito and other things as well. >> why don't we assume if they are part of the majority or the religion that is their religious tendencies? the wire we worried about this case at all? because there are some women who don't adhere to that particular religious tenet and we perceive that the grumman has determined there is a real need for contraception. >> that is the larger problem with the government's case the utter absence of evidence. >> what is the utter absence? there is plenty of evidence

relied upon to show that contraceptives are provided to women in a seamless way that the number of unintended pregnancies dramatically falls. as does the number of abortions. said that the risks women who want contraception but cannot get it. >> but that is the problem justice sotomayor that is what exist not just with the employers but respect to every other employee. >> that we exempt certain employers from title seven and that is it because we don't believe that racial discrimination is a bad thing or not that we are committed to eradicating the problem, because at a

certain point we have assumed that as a society or government, you cannot do everything you cannot take the needs of 100 percent of women why is that bad judgment? >> that means one of two things even there they will tolerate with respect to the employees grandfathered plan , or of small businesses of the religious employers. the unemployed and self-employed they're willing to tolerate those problems and really does question if these can comply on the flip side they are not willing to err tolerate with respect to those other

people but further their interest the question becomes wire all of those other ways suddenly insufficient when it comes to petitioners? that is the fundamental breakdown. we have seen an absence of evidence on many critical issues. for the sake of the argument how many lack access? we don't know the answer to that if we knew how much of that would be reduced we would reduce that by 1%? but we still don't know if the government could achieve a comparable a production in a less burdensome means with respect to all other employees don't get contraceptive coverage from the employers. >> no quite understand this

argument is seen as those of the most compelling interest often have exceptions small business exceptions with the transition rules like a grandfather position. if every time that existed somebody could say how the government must not really believe in this because there is the exception. they allow some people, we might as well pack it in. >> dell think that's right. for some of the grandfather plan is no funds provisions to make it is lower every single year. >> now has leveled off. >> but if you make any change of your health plan you are out from under the grandfather and it is

inevitable that any employer will make changes of the health plan. it is a diminishing transitional period once you change your plan your alpha under the grandfather. >> yes but they allowed them at the rate of medical inflation and allow you to continue adding employees without the grandfather's status which shows why it has leveled off at 25%. but putting that aside i had a massive exemption so eager shows your interest is not that compelling beat his you can tolerate bad stuff for other people but it means the government is telling us >> bashir are redi incentives to put into place

the next amy pass the law adopted in the exemption for churches you will get in trouble or the rules to help people adjust to renew the go regime you have trouble doing that. not the exemptions for small businesses even though there are particular concerns that they face in you will be in trouble for that. those are terrible incentives to a legislature. >> if think what that means when the government claims and interest that is overwhelming to violate sincerely held police witnesses we will exempt some for purely secular reasons or political reasons or others for religious. >> so your point is imagine a widespread government program filled with exemptions with a smaller group of people who need that for religious reasons

but let the others some have good reasons and others have terrible off five or under the first amendment or rifra i just described the united states tax cut over we know he did not have to have an exemption for those who are religious objecting for example, to pay taxes to support habor's. >> site looking for the same question because i am looking for the distinction in what that is in for the reason i just said i don't think that it can be you have exempted some people say you have to exempt the religious people to because that runs through the government of the united states we knew there is a distinction or a least i believe when you tell me.

>> these are factual issues. >> when you look at a regime with a religious exemption and large exemptions for non religious reasons and then the same problem that petitioners present but that is not the thrust of my question. i have not found it yet so what is the real distinction you call it rifra medicare but i try to find a basis for the distinction between those things that we do despite their religious objection in those that we don't if there is such a difference list them all

into pages seven o write some go the other way. he says people are involved than that could be the answer. >> that is a tough one but settled think there is a clear line. give me a heads the ways the law works. [laughter] are you allowed to require of web violates their belief said he looked at how the government treats others in their situation in here it says with respect to all of these other people we're willing to tolerate but under rifra you have to look at those other ways or if they are uniquely in sufficient. >> is there any accommodation that government for an offer to result of women of your

employees to get health care as part of a student based plan to make the accommodations are acceptable. >> no, no, no. you objected to this one but is there any type of notification that would be acceptable? >> gift by submitting this or any other we got the same treatment as a religious employers. >> but the religious and players their employees do not get contraceptive coverage through the employer base plan. i am asking if paris is a of the women employees getting contraceptive coverage.

>> we have not been offered an alternative. i think the more distance between the petitioners in fell less problematic. >> bet but puts even of distance? >> we filed a notice of objection and that is the same way furthers its interest with respect to all other employees who don't get coverage from the employer based plan. >> so your answer to justice kagan is wrong so i raise my hand i stare decisis a religious objector and somehow they have a general law that requires all the

plans and insurance companies if your insurer is involved in any way you object? >> to provide that contraceptive coverage i think we would be fine. >> but as a college student there with the same coverage that is available as far as i am understand you are saying now the government provides its own plan but insurers the religious organization said the students will have to get something else and is unlike

all other protections. >> territory to be careful because we have many clients with many different views but a general manner i conceded case if they seize control of our plan that we are required to provide then using those plans as the vehicle of coverage solely as they are enrolled then i could see why many would seedbed is a substantial burden on their religious belief then return to less restrictive alternatives and it is quite clear the government house alternatives it is the same views is for everybody else it leased the evidence to explain why. >> the council.

>> mr. chief justice of every please the court this strikes precisely the sensible balance between compelling governmental interest that congress ought if this gore recognizes how the law begins that accommodation of the petitioners by exempting them by a contraceptive requirement sky-high air around the respect of the petitioners. >> is it fair for the b-2 infer from the way you open your remarks that you concede there is a substantial burden? acquistion is what permissable accommodation is the least restricted from the substantial burden? >> we do not concede there is we concede that it is

sincere but we don't think a case in which a religious objection is made to the independent arrangements with the third parties fill a regulatory gap created that that qualifies. >> do you believe they are composite? >> no we do not. >> then there is a substantial burden the question is if there is an accommodation. >> i am happy to discuss that substantial burden but we want to go to the critical point of how the rifra scrutiny applies if it does. there is a law of time talking about the various alternatives the government

might be able to use instead of the accommodation i think there is a problem with every single one of them as they did feet the very purpose for which congress propose the services required not just contraception but all preventive services in the point is if you look at the statutory provision of the appendix which is a preventive services provision the point is a group health plan that covers people through their employer or individual health-insurance coverage that is sold on the exchanges shawl be cost free but the whole point of this provision was to insure that people who got health insurance could get the

services as part of their regular care from their regular doctor. >> so your compelling interest is and that they obtain the services but women obtain the services through the insurance plan through the third-party administrator hired by the little sisters? it seems to me you can say we've tried to do is make sure everybody has this coverage you want to make sure they have it to the program and that is what they object to. >> dieter stand but assume for a moment i'm happy to discuss substantial burden but there is one but the point i am making here that is critical is '90s options the petitioners have identified going out on the exchange to buy a separate policy or title 10 or medicare or medicaid but you

have to change the law to make them eligible even if you did every single one creates a problem that congress was trying to solve because it would require setting off though one of separate channel to get contraceptive coverage. >> but the form on which the services are provided not the fact their provider not is not the question in other words, the petitioners use the phrase hijacking and it seems that isn't accurate description they want to use the mechanism that the petitioners have set up to provide services because they want that coverage to be seamless maybe this is a sufficient agreement but it isn't whether or not they receive contraception services they may not object to the fact the people that

work for them will have the services provided they object for the mechanism they have set up because they think that complicity. >> and vendor stated that is their position but i will engage in that constitutes a substantial burden. we think it doesn't because the way the accommodation is structured although you are quite right seeks the perspective of the employee to make sure they get protection the from the perspective of the employer this is provided during a separate program. >> serious say don't worry religion your not composite. >> no. that judgment is up to you but there is the objective and that that rifra

recognizes of a burden that was true with case long before rifra and recognized in the cases which there was no doubt. >> then it seems to me there are less restrictive alternatives is is the least restrictive? >> as i said if this scrutiny applies then certainly it is the least restrictive. >> suppose it were possible a woman who does not get contraception coverage under a grandfather plan or a plan offered by a church or a religious nonprofit to obtain a contraceptive only policy free of charge for one of the changes? why isn't that a less

restrictive alternative? >> that is the problem isn't but that is the problem congress tries to overcome to prevent services provision. >> why? is that the exchanges are so unworkable even with the help of the navigator if she wants free contraception coverage she just asked to sign upon the exchange then she has to do insurance instead of one now she has won from the employer and one from this plan people have flood insurance car for medical services and one for prescription or dental or vision. >> for that very reason the employee has to go out to get a separate policy even in the world that doesn't exist now they cannot be sold at the changes now the. >> we can talk about that but in the hypothetical

world that is the equally as effective of the government's interest the whole point is to get this care from your regular doctor with regular health care without any co pay barriers so think of the perspective of a woman employee who has a health plan from her employer she goes to her doctor regular may have a medical condition that could be a danger in this is about 15 percent of all prescribed contraception to treat a medical condition may be persius wants what is appropriate for her but what happens under the petitioners regime is the doctor says sorry i can help you it is and that you just don't get the prescription recant right did he cannot counselor educate. >> he is paid under the

contraceptive plan. >> because that is not a regular doctor you have to buy the plant find a doctor who was willing to take the separate plant. >> you assume they're willing to sell them separate if you subsidize a one editor 15% which is what you we're doing to provide services under this health insurance plan. >> but the whole plate justice even if a small barrier the medical experts said even those small barriers even though small barriers were cast the incentive those that use contraception more than otherwise and it imposes a significant greater barrier. >> what about the women into the grandfathered plants?

>> in those they have no contraception coverage. >> we will talk about them plans your question directly but this is a traditional device those have dropped by 50 percent there is no reason to thank you will not continue to drop if it does through will be at zero very soon. [laughter] >> but this is in the interim it does not require contraception in coverage right away and the grandfather plans it covers it for the 25 roles to get coverage under their parents' health insurance no great administrative difficulty for the grandfather plans to put in contraceptive coverage right

away just as they did for the 25 year-old but congress said they important thing light covering the 25 year-old graduate student you have to do that right away but those who we talked about today you can continue not to provide that as long as you maintain your grandfather status. >> when americans with disabilities act was passed it didn't impose the immediate requirement every building to be retrofitted what it said was in that context that it is feasible to do so you shall then new buildings should have the access requirement nobody would say that government lacks compelling interest to force the ada because congress decided on a transitional system there were cut interest congress

decided to move transition so let's get the declaration from the diocese of pittsburgh the joint appendix where they say we're sticking with a grandfather plan now because we don't want to trigger the contraceptive requirement that is costing a fortune in we have to change the grandfather plan the institute of medicine and its steady said contraceptive coverage is standard practice now that 86 percent of all plants have contraceptive coverage so most of these women will have it not cost trade and that is the difference. >> come back to the point you're making with the ada that certainly is a good point with the americans

have disabilities act could be very expensive to retrofit facilities to accommodate those people with disabilities but are you saying that that burden to simply institute coverage for preventive care as it was done for the 25 year-old is comparable to architectural changes? >> no but unlike the exemption for small employees which exempts 17 million people and does so permanently this is a transitional devices were overtime were to be the grandfather plan there will be some form of contraception coverage anyway. >> go back to the substantial burden because

justice breyer talks about drawing the line when does cover and a half to accommodate and when does it have to act? >> some have suggested that helps too bad some clarity to the case which is if what your religious belief is asking the government to do is change behavior with respect to others, but then it can be a substantial burden because we live in a society it government has to function it has your military objector you can tell the government you can go draft someone else if you

cannot spend your money on more. they don't have to use you but to promote the others you are entitled does this make any sense? and as i am interested what they're asking is the government not to use the regulatory power -- power with those who don't have the religious objection and forced the burden on the women who try to help those who don't. >> that is the essence of our position in your honor and i believe in trying to answer just as briers question i believe it comes from that we do recognize the risk is an objection the court said it did not doubt that the government actions.

>> it is in just a case of government dealing with the third-party the petitioners objection but the government is hijacking their process by a third-party administrator to provide these services. to say yes you can do we want the you cannot compel other people to take actions are they inconsistent with her religious beliefs that is not what is going space with the relationship between the insurer or the third-party administrator that is used by government to provide these services it is in just the third party that they want them to take certain actions and to this limited extent that is the

context in which it occurs the fact there is a relationship between the sisters and their employees but the two planes that our critical data is a recognizable burden in the first is what we're doing is trying to make an alternative arrangement, as close as we can to ensure that the employees who may not share the position of religious beliefs get what the law entitles them to while at the same time ensuring that the employer has no legal obligation to pay for the coverage coverage, provide the coverage in any way. the practical features of this are critical the employer cannot be charged even the insurance plan cannot be charged the insurance company or a

third-party administrator will provide separate segregated notices with a separate insurance card so in that respect it is the arrangement with third-party >> they are not third parties but the insurance company administrator that has been hired they should balance this pretty clear you want coverage for contraceptive severs -- services to be provided with the one insurance package that is a compelling government interest now whether or not people who have sincere religious objections to the hiring of the insurance company with a third-party administrator with those terms under the government's compelling interest out ways the sincere religious objection

is that a fair understanding >> i think it is one fair understanding can you think of a better one? [laughter] >> we would be content if the court would conclude with respect to a substantial burden it could assume one but the government satisfied the burden under rifra to show that compelling interest. . .

now we have the vietnam -- vietnamese church of the escapees in los angeles who are so poor they have to meet in the basement of the house and the parking regulations stop their congregation from coming even if they only want to meet on sunday. now think about that one. we can start with that in the context of third parties being heard so they can practice their religion. so that when i can think of a lot of a lot of counterexamples that maybe you couple that but we have the attacks case, and minister it, widespread administrative rules the government has leeway where third parties widespread

administrative. jc so i'm trying to get the thinking of the people who have thought about this, for you and the others here on what's the best way to treat that burden? is not hard to find religious writing and the people when they go into society assumes some burden. >> we are not urging you to state the conference of standard here. >> but i do. >> i think we are urging a more and commensal approach that recognizes that the principles articulated apply in a situation where the government is acting, making arrangements for the third parties in order to fill the regulatory gap that has been created by the government granting an exemption to a religious entity. >> could you mr. verrilli provide a hypothetical where the

government would come into an unoccupied room and the facility is not being used for anything, they don't interfere at all they even pay rent and they command and establish a title x distributing contraceptives on little sisters property. there is no financial burden. there's actually financial benefits. >> we think that would trigger a substantial burden. the differences in that situation they are actually on their premises and in the situation if i can get back to what i was discussing with you mr. chief justice at not is a different entity from petitioners. blue cross is a different entity from petitioners. the government it's arrangements with at our blue cross and we make arrangements with that man blue cross and other pdas to provide contraceptive coverage to other third parties. >> you admit in your brief that in this case of a self-insured plan they notice or the form or

the notice becomes part of the plan. this is their health insurance plan established under erisa and you are putting a new objectionable elements into the plan. isn't that correct? >> i don't think that's quite right just as alito. i think there has been some confusion on the petitioners side. the two separate notices that operate here in the self-insured plan the first is the notice that the employer provides to the government. that's an erisa plan document that but the legal effect of that document is to exempt the employer from any obligation to provide contraceptive coverage. there's a second document, a different document that the government sends to the third-party administrator. that document is a document that has the legal effect a crazy obligation on the part of the third-party administrator to provide coverage so it's not the case of the document comes to us as an authorizing document. that's an exempting document.

>> is their plan in you admit that you're putting something into their plan that they object to on religious grounds. >> the difference between that of mr. clemons hypothetical is one in something tangible physical property and the other involves something that's intangible. >> it's not just that it's intangible property. the plan is a set of rules and a third-party minister to becomes for purposes of administering this to becomes a plan administrators for this portion of the plan that even if one thought this did create a legally sufficient reason to find a substantial burden for third party of ministers it's not sure of the situation and insurance companies that's not sure about church plan so that it seems to me the question is whether switching from having the self-insured third-party administrator situation to an insurance company situation but that would be substantial.

>> isn't the insurance policy the way in which the employer provides the benefits that are available? >> the governor makes an arrangement with the insurance company that parallels that so it isn't true, it's a parallel to that plan so it's a significant difference there. >> would the government's interest in requiring compliance by catholic charities of pittsburgh totally exempting catholic churches? >> this gets to the question of the church exemption your honor and let me try to explain that. i think it's helpful to understand how it came about. the church initially hhs decided it would create an exemption for churches and then was some back-and-forth regularity basijans granted exemption for

churches and in the red ledges and non-profits came in and said well the exemption not to be extended to us. the government made a judgment that as a categorical matter it wasn't willing to extend the exemption to all of the non-profits as was requested but instead would use a combination which we thought was the best way that we could both protect their religious liberty and -- and it's properly phrase in the briefing. the combination is the way in which the organizations comply with the mandate. they don't have to comply to the accommodation so the reason we do the lighting is because i think professor lake is quite instructive on this point. while no light is perfect and i'm sure this light is imperfect and will be some overlap between entities that look closer to being on one side of the light and then the other but the line, it's a valid line and it's a

valid line. justice kennedy noted earlier. there are some entities that appear close to the days that have exemption but there'll be lots of other entities whose connection to that core religious mission is much more tenure waiting. >> you have to draw the line. could you apply the same requirements to little sisters to the church and idiot self? >> i think we could your honor. i think it would be an appropriate combination and if we had this sake of compelling interest and we make the same argument but we have tried to be especially careful. >> you understand the argument. we said this in cases like centro and others if you a lot of exemptions it underlines your argument that this is a compelling interest. >> to let me try to walk through

this carefully because we think it's important. they have identified three. we have had a lengthy discussion about that and the judge showed that and i don't think we can argue with that exemption. it undermines the government's compelling interest. they claim it's an exemption for employers who have fewer than 15 employees but that's just wrong. in fact there's no reason to think that virtually anybody in that category of employees of those small employers is getting contraceptive coverage as part of their regular health care from regular doctors and let explain why that is. there is no exemption from the contraceptive coverage of that group group. approved this several petitioners are in the group of fewer than 50 employees and they're asking for, and they have raised their rfra claim here and that's because one employer in that group provides coverage. they have to meet the contraceptive requirements and

employees get the coverage from their original doctors as part of their regular health plan. also your employer is not providing coverage in that group then you go on an exchange and then you purchase a policy on the exchange of that policy or bites you with contraceptive coverage is part of your regular health plan from your regular doctor or if you you're eligible apply for medicaid and medicaid gives you contraceptive coverage as part of your regular health plan. >> for the employees have to buy the plan on the exchange because the employer doesn't offer health insurance, does that arrangement frustrates the government's compelling interest? >> no because in that circumstance your honor the only option that employee has to buy individual policy on exchange and that individual policy will contain the contraceptive coverage from your regular doctor as part of your regular health care. the difference, when somebody works for a grandfathered plan

for example and that's the category or for a church those people are getting insurance and so for them it is an obstacle because you are forcing them to purchase a second insurance policy and that comes with a financial penalty because part of their conversation is the health insurance they are getting from their regular employer. >> as far as the church plant here's some of the religious plan here artifacts subsidized in it. >> i think the answer to that as is they are not subsidizing it because the way in which this plan is structured the combination is structured is that they aren't common players are not to bear any financial burden for the contraceptive coverage. it has to be provided without charging the employer. the funds have to be segregated and all activity has to be segregated so it's quite carefully designed to avoid the

existence of any subsidy and so we talked about -- >> if it's so easy to provide and so free why can't they get to another plan? >> been at the site up for second plan, pay for second plan your honor and that's precisely is what congress is trying to make sure that didn't exist in the statue. the whole idea here is to ensure these employees get the health care get this coverage and get this care from a regular doctor as part of regular health care without these added obstacles and the need to sign up for another plan and find other doctors who provide coverage on that plan. all of those are decisive obstacles the congress is trying to eliminate. >> so it comes down to a question who has to do the paperwork, if the employer has to do it that's no good in their religious organization has to do it. >> i think it's a lot more than that your honor. you have to go out and find a

separate. >> on the exchanges, put yourself in the position of this. >> that's a falsehood are the exchanges require full service health insurance policies with minimum coverage that are set forth that are very comprehensive. >> that's true with respect to every policy sold on exchange is? >> yes, every policy except for pediatric. >> but you have separate health coverage projects -- products sold on exchanges. you couldn't do it under current law at your honor. >> the way constitutional objections work is you don't buy from exchange for very long. >> in this circumstance you don't need to get to that question of whether there's an obligation to change the current law because even if you did have a second contraceptive only policy available on an exchange that would be precisely the kind of barrier that congress is

trying to eliminate. instead of one policy that creates the incentive for a lot of women employees i'm certain will reach the conclusion. >> i guess that substantiates the point i was trying to make that it's a question of who does the paperwork. you said it's a hassle to go to the exchange although we have heard about how easy it is. you get the exchange or you allow your infrastructure is petitioners to be used as a vehicle. i'm not saying it comes out one way or are the other. and just trying to focus on exactly, the question with the want the employee to sign it or little sisters to sign a paper. in one case it's an administrative burden as you said in the other case is a violation of the case of principle faith. >> the point your honor is that

congress and the institute of medicine, congress made a judgment here that this does impose a very significant obstacle, these kinds of requirements. the result is significantly less use of medically necessary services. it doesn't just come down to this. >> it's a necessary to hijack plants. >> your honor it is wide the government's interest is advanced in the least restrictive manner and the most effective manner. >> is the reason i gather that you don't want to have the women to have to ask for the coverage is because vast numbers of women will? those who have religious convictions don't and they're those who art -- and since they are in inertia bound we can't

say so what, because poor people who don't object religiously if they get the contraceptives, that lowers the cost of health coverage later on. so the government has an interest in that. and therefore there's an interest of some kind, enough for allowing a system and not having a system where the inertia bound have to take an initiative. have i got that right? do i have the other part right which is this is not hijacking because there is a federal regulation that says the infrastructure of the insurance contraceptive related plan belongs to to the insurer, not to the person who buys the insurance. am i correct l? >> that is our correct your honor and that's why he say when we make an arrangement with aetna or blue cross we are not making arrangements with

petitioners. >> but then the executives deal with the problem of what's available on these exchanges in the present time in this way. policies are available that provide conference of coverage. could the executive say as a matter of our air force meant discretion, we are not going to take any action against insurers who offer contraceptive only policies and in fact we are going to subsidize those insurers at 150% just as we do in the situation -- why would that not be a valid exercise enforcement discretion? >> i don't think it would be but even if it were to present the same problem of creating the obstacle which creates the inertia problem which bottom line is a compelling interest which is not just the compelling interest of the medicine and hhs

but the whole point of the statutory provision here is that this is supposed to be -- >> so why would it be not something what you could do in accordance with your understanding of executive power? >> i don't think it would address the problem justice alito. >> let me explain the difference between the employer filing a form. saeb nor blue cross that covers many other people. the difference between that and a woman who now doesn't have this coverage has to go out and get it from someplace else. this is just a matter of filing filing -- there's a real difference between an employer saying we are not going to cover contraceptives in the woman who suddenly doesn't have that in

front of her package. >> i think that's exactly the point here. the woman employee. >> i'm sorry you asked what the difference was. the differences it's not just about filling out paperwork. go to your regular doctor and you say you have a medical condition and that puts me at risk of being pregnant or just want contraceptive coverage are neat contraception to treat a medical condition and the way this works now and the rfra example is granted here that doctor has to say i cannot help help. >> best interest on one side of the equation. what's the interest on the other side of the equation? >> understand avoiding complicity. we take that very seriously. which way does rfra cut in a

situation that decisively favors government because the interests are compelling and as we have tried to explain none have come any where close to being equally effective in ensuring that women get this coverage and the obstacles, you get told by your regular doctor i can't counsel you about this and numerous petitions have filed declarations saying our insurance will not cover any counseling about conscious options so you have to go out and find another doctor and you've got to find a way to pay for that doctor and then you have to find a way to pay for the contraceptive coverage. a whole host of very serious consequences is not just about signing a form in the back gets to the heart of the problem later. >> the doctor for whom the woman would go further services under the plan would be unwilling to provide those services under a

separate plan that covers contraception. that would be a happenstance. someone has offered a separate plan that separate plan, then that doctor as she goes to his regular doctor has to be under the same plan. >> we used the hijack analogy as you mentioned. can you explain why you don't see this as a hijack? >> i think the way i have tried to explain that your honor is that we have tried and i think the court recognizes and hobby lobby that the goal was to exempt the employer from providing, to exempt them and provide a separate means, through separate funds without their involvement and therefore it's not hijacking. what i would like to do, i want to make one point. >> to follow up on your answer before you do the contraceptive services will be provided pursuant one plan. they are hired by a religious

organization to get a brochure of all your insurance and everything it is and where would the contraceptive services, it won't be in that brochure. it can't be in that brochure. there has to be a separate communication for the insurance company the employee telling the employer you are getting a separate from us and that's how works. >> mr. francisco earlier said if aetna offers a separate policy in the insurance that he thought that would be an adequate accommodation. >> so i think that raises all the problems identified. >> i meant he says generally if aetna under some other policy offers it on the exchange to women who might want to go on exchange and by that policy, that's okay, if that's what they do. what is different from that from

what happens here? it's basically the same thing. >> it's two policies instead of one. >> it is in two policies instead of one because the contraceptives contraceptives are being provided by government regulation. the only seamlessness is the woman doesn't have to apply separately. >> if it's a separate policy you will have to apply separately. i do want to make one point about the nose because i know my friend weighs the idea of note is that it's not just about the seasonable plan but the notice they provide. that argument i think can constitute a substantial burden because it's entirely derivative of the objection to us setting up this third-party arrangement and i think mr. clement told you that this morning because he said if the government didn't take the step in providing coverage would be happy to provide any information they want on the form and so i think what that tells you is the objection here most of the objection is the the arrangement

to provide the separate coverage and not the notice on its own terms. >> before you sit down could i just ask you an informational question about a particular situation of the little sisters? their regular third-party administrator also will not provide coverage even if they were to comply with the forum or the notice requirement and therefore you say they probably cannot be, there is probably no way under erisa to obtain contraceptive coverage for their employees unless you can find another third party administer that you could deal with. in that situation with the little sister still be subject to fines for failing to comply? >> no we don't think so enough i could in closing what i would ask this court to do is to weigh the alternatives that i put before you in this case.

i'm the one side you have a serious thoughtful effort to respect the petitioner's religious beliefs by creating a system that allows them to exempt themselves from requiring in a straightforward manner and that protects the fundamental rights and liberties and dignity of their employees many of whom may not share their religious beliefs about contraception. on the other side of the scale what you've got is a demand that those rights of those employees who may not share the petitioner's beliefs he extinguished, extinguished until such time as congress creates and enacts a different program that will require a separate one-off gerryrigged channel for them to provide or obtain contraceptive coverage that will

impose precisely the burdens that congress said under the relevant statutory provision or unacceptable for all denied services. >> that's one way of characterizing what's involved here but you could also come you can also say that and it's true that this is a case in which a great array of religious groups, not just catholics and baptists and evangelicals but choose church of jesus christ of latter-day saints, and indian tribe has said that this presents an unprecedented threat to religious liberty in this country, what would you say that? >> what i would say to that your honor is that i think essentially what the courts of appeals have said which is that rfra requires a sensible balance and a sensible balance is essential in a pluralistic society like ours in which

people of every faith on earth live and work side-by-side. the government has to do mr. rules that are fair to everyone. the combination achieves that balance the petitioner's vision is very far from that balance and therefore it should be affirmed. thank you. >> thank you counsel. mr. clement, four minutes. >> thank you mr. chief justice. chief justice. a few points in. i'd like to start with the justice kennedy because i don't think it's the case that just because congress exempts churches that it has to exempt the universities. what it needs though as a rationale for drawing the line. my friend on the other side said the wine doesn't have to be perfect. under compelling interest in least restrictive alternative that at least has to be pretty good and a line that they have drawn here is absurd. i would urge you to look at the amicus brief filed by the dominican sisters.

it explains why they picked using 6033 as the tax code makes no sense. that's an informed of styling requirement that there is no substantive difference. if my clients filed a form to get the same tax-exempt status as the churches, the only difference in that provision is whether you filed a form. this is the end of treatment is exactly the same for you to use that line to draw a distinction between churches and universities for the little sisters poor is a terrible line to draw. >> if that has a line drawing problem and there's a reason to mention several times by a leading proponent of rfra discusses this line. >> i would say that gets me to the next point that if i could finish this point for one second. the original justification for the blind page or justice kennedy is the exempt organizations would be more

likely to hire for religionists and therefore less likely to have employees who would use the product. my clients equally enjoy the title vii exemption which gives them the right to higher coreligionists of their original rationale applies equally slight clients. you have to draw a line. as to the exemptions, i will respectfully disagree with the professor. >> churches you have to tell us you're going to claim an exemption because not every church has the same religious tenets so is that what he would prefer? is that the sort of incentive you want to put out there? is that the message you are giving which is there are lots of rules that apply differently to churches because we recognize they are special. others may be special like them but it's clearly not what the churches. staffers of all the exemption is not limited to churches.

applies to religious orders. to answer both of these questions together not all exemptions are created equal and professor lake is at great scholar but even he admitted he didn't understand the details of this particular plan. he left it at a party and he subsequently said that there really was a requirement for these entities to contract, and there is, then he would recognize it as a substantial burden but the important point not all exemptions are created equal. if you create an exemption for small employees that's a exercise in enforcement of him home. if you create an exemption for take the centrum case if the exemption had been for a substance that was less dangerous maybe the problem there was that the government art exempted the sacramental use of peyote in the schedule one substance so of course that a hard time arguing why they couldn't provide an exemption for different schedule one substance.

all of these exemptions have to be treated the same. justice breyer there's no other way to do the hard work of looking at the exemptions and see whether they make sense. one of the cases that thomas clearly want to embrace and rfra was yoder and got her was a relatively hard case because they're basically were no exemptions. .. >> think you cancel, cases submitted.

>> internet a book to be starting at 8:30 p.m., programs about energy. at 8:30 p.m. the book about the future of energy and the environment. after after that, stephen moore and kathleen white in their book "viewing freedom". and just past 1030, meg jacobson and "panic at the pump" the energy crisis and politics in the 1970s. >> this week on q&a, editorial cartoonist michael ramirez, a two-time pulitzer prize winner talks about his book to me liberty or give me obama care. >> have you ever drawn a cartoon of mohammed just like i don't a

controversial cartoons for the sake of controversy. the point of the cartoon it is to give a message. where there might be an opportunity with mohammed at just the fact that having that in the court to would overshadow the point i'm trying to make and take away from the effectiveness of the cartoon. it's not that i'm a postseason mohammed, i more for ensuring the message i'm trying to communicate gets to the audience. >> this is a personal question. we'll talk about your book of course, are you really the

brother, two sisters that are medical doctors and two brothers that her medical dr. >> i am. when you when you and their spouses we have like nine people that are closely related that her all doctors. in fact, the only way i can get the show up at the marini hands as if i say ideal politicians and i deal with congress, i'm sort of like a proctologist. i'm in. i'm in the let me the family reunion. >> go back to suit two sisters and two brothers were medical doctors and how many of their spouses? >> my older brother is a fertility specialist, his wife is not a doctor, she's he he only one. all the other ones are doctors. and then my grandmother, grandfather were both in the medical profession. my grandfather was was a physician in japan. my grandmother was of pharmacist. >> your mother and father quest mark. >> not. in fact i wanted to be a doctor. i never wanted to be a political cartoonist. i cartoonist. i wanted to be a cardiovascular surgeon. i've seen in a speech the other

day, president obama got a noble peace prize for doing apsley nothing. i should get one for all the lies i say a been a journalist instead. >> go back to beginning. you have a japanese-american mother ended mexican-american father. >> half japanese, one quarter spanish, one quarter mexican and completely confuse. my dad was in the military for 23 years. he was an army intelligence. he met my mother in japan. she moved to the united states and i was born in tokyo, japan. me and my older brother. the brother. the first language i spoke was japanese. it has been a long road. i have lived all over the world. it has been good exposure because i lived in belgian for a for a year, germany for two years, paris for eight months, and on and off between the united states and japan. >> but the political cartoon came to win? >> i never anticipated bring up political cartoonist.

i really wanted to be a doctor. i recall reading reading the newspaper every morning with my dad, when i was living with california. he took the the orange county register in l.a. times, and the register had jeff mcnally who was working with the richmond times leader at the time. but they ran his cartoon from there. >> we had a morning ritual where we would have breakfast in he would read the l.a. times first and i would read the orange county register and we would swat papers. i was was aware political cartoons 11. especially paul conrad's in dark images. they were moving and had deep messages. i think paul took that a step further, i think jeff took that a step further with his wonderful sense of humor that extended the reach of the cartoon by reaching a much larger audience with a message with the humor. so like any other reader and i

loved looking at the political cartoons but never in my life and vision may be political cartoonist, just double into a by accident. >> were going to show a bunch of cartoons from your new book, but before i do that this is what's your second book. this may have been in your first book but it is not in this one. it was very, you will remember the secret service came after you. but it is the cartoon, you explain what is. >> i used an old photograph, an iconic photograph in the vietnam war era. for the police chief had just caught a vietnamese terrorists who had killed the colonel and his family and they basically executed him on the streets of saigon. i use that iconic image to portray george w bush being assassinated by politics in the

iraq war. that image himself somehow got communicated to the secret service that i was advocating for assassinating the president. but honestly, i do not think that i ever really was investigated initially. i think what happened was the headline of a cartoonist being investigated by secret service. and when i got got in there we were inundated with calls wanting to interview here being investigated by a conservative administration. but i had really not been contacted by anybody in the secret service. in fact to the general rule was all you have to do is call and start testing and they would start forwarding you to my phone. i do not receive any phone calls before the story broke.

then as it turned out, the l.a. branch of the secret service did end up contacting me but only because they had a big publicity about the secret service and i think they felt left out. so i got a call in the middle of the day and this guy said with the secret service i would like to see you and i said well you have to get in line, how do i know you're with the secret service? >> he said is that i have dark sunglasses a black suit and a black tie. >> and i settle by all mean that proves a come on down. i thought it was a crank call. and then 15 minutes later my secretary said mr. ramirez the secret service is here to see you. of course i was willing to go down and see if i could remember any counterfeiting that i had done lately anyways in the l.a. times dispatched a team of lawyers them there and they promptly escorted them out of the building because we do want to set the precedence of having

a journalist being interviewed by the secret service. >> host: we have 18 seconds of video let's watch this 18 seconds to show how graphic this is. >> host: you're not that old to remember that,. >> i do sorta remember it come i don't remember the entire clip of course back in television those days i don't think they showed the entire thing. i do remember the photograph as being an iconic image of the vietnam war. that is a political cartoon in is about. using images that that people are familiar with to relay view. >> so another controversy that you were involved in. >> i was involved in another one? >> host: i hate cartoon and you are accused of showing the

western wall in jerusalem and here it is on the screen. what was that cartoon? >> it was called worshiping their god and what i did was i took the stones and i produce the letters hh te. and at the time i have this figure that is kind of a conglomeration of extremists israeli settlers and people who were opposed or the people who are creating all the violence and the people there. in addition having a palestinian figure who if you notice he is on a prayer but he has his shoes on. both these figures are utilizing a false religion for political purpose.

instead of pursuing aleut religious advocacy i thought there worshiping hatred. so this cartoon when it appeared i actually got numerous complaints on both sides but the jewish groups were upset that i use the wailing wall figure in the palestinian groups were mad at me because i was accusing them of hatred. so just proves once a and i am an equal opportunity offender. >> c-span: you are syndicated to have any papers were talking about. >> about 540 papers around the world's before when was the first time in anderson and i can run it. >> only had one of my entire career, it was with my editor, lionel was the editor of the memphis commercial appeal and he's one about me over to memphis. >> guest: in your there seven years? >> lionel was killed in an awful accident on new year's eve day

and angus took over from him. angus was the editor of the pittsburgh paper and the rumor was thick that angus was very liberal and lionel was very conservative. but i was be one of the first people to go because i'm very conservative. in fact we had civil leaders lining up in his office for three days straight telling angus to fire me. so we had a pretty terrible beginning. in fact he kicked me out of one of the editorial meetings. i like engaging in the editorial meetings and on the third day he was there on a wednesday the topic was on welfare reform and they're trying to advocate working in order to get welfare

so i have this cartoon where had an uncle sam figure lying in an alley pulling the cardboard sign that said will work for food and he's looking at the headline on workfare and he's turning to next him in you said you didn't really actually want me to work. angus candidate and i went up to him and i said this is a legitimate cartoon, they cannot run and he said will is not going to run in this paper. and i said why will send places in my syndicate these are fine but as i can run of this paper. he's more explicit language than that. and so i called up my counter and i said we better get everything together, i think i'm probably leaving. i demanded a meeting with angus on that friday i went into his office and i said look, you have five illustrators in this newspaper that a better ashes than i am, you want them to dry what you want in the newspaper that i think you ought to hire

them. go up and do your political dance, i'm an editorial cartoonist, my job is to think of these profound images, break them down into something that is very easy to present to an audience and understand and get my point of view and it has my name on it. if you put your name on the cartoon, by all means do it. but i'm an editorial cartoonist and i'm not quite to draw your cartoons. i'm going to draw the best cartoons that i can. give give me the freedom to do what i do best, i will research these cartoons and substantiate them. i win a pulitzer prize. but i'm not in a draw your cartoons but if you're gonna fire i want you to buy me right now. angus laughed at me and he said no, you can do whatever you want. and from that moment on we got along great. and he gave me the complete freedom to do what i want. but that's the only incident where i had a cartoon killed. >> c-span: how long were you at the l.a. times. >> about seven and half years. >> c-span: what happened there?

>> i think it was a mutual parting of ways. they were looking at ways to cut costs. it was never a really good fit. we talked about my predecessor sir and paul and i were probably as opposed is to people can be. and you know what they actually wanted to limit the number of cartoons that i did every week. in fact i had to negotiate upward to do more cartoons. so there is a huge a transition between publishers. i worked with a publisher and as the publishers came and went i think the familiarity between me and the publishers left as well and there came a point where they're looking to cut costs and a measure they really embrace my philosophy. probably the only job i had outside of military service where i had to put on kevlar and

a helmet to walk through. >> c-span: will talk about your new job at investors business daily. let's look at some your cartoons from this book, this is called give me liberty or give me obama care. why the title? >> because they would not let me put an illustrated guide to impeachment. i think what i look at this obama administration and think they have done, this massive expansion of government, we have $120 trillion in unfunded liabilities when it comes to entitlement. 50 million more americans that are on government aid. i think more than anything what this ministration represents to me is a political cartoonist, big government progressive regime. on lawful regime. then when i'm proud of in this book is really it makes the case on all the things that they have do wrong and past history is a

good way to provide for the future. were getting into another presidential election cycle. i'm hoping that this will spark the initiative for people to want real change to get back to our constitutional foundation and government to attack them to get involved in the process because that is what political cartoons or catalyst for thought. and and educate progressives who are not seeing clearly what the consequences of these disastrous policies have been. >> c-span: for folks that don't know your politics, and the introduction of your book is from dicks dick cheney and the afterword is from rush limbaugh so there's no question where you are. but i want to show the cartoon. this once or 2008. it is headline there the 47 million uninsured and for those who cannot see at the first figure says i can afford it but i don't want it and then their 18 million underneath that

person. i'm 18 to 25 years old and i'm indestructible, a 400,000 at the time. i'm really glad i'm. i'm illegal and i'm not here, 12.6 milling. i'm in between jobs and only temporarily uninsured milling. i'm covered by my parents haven't sign me up yet. and i'm eligible for government health programs but have not signed up, 3.5 million. and you have asked rick setting up to more because some categories overlap. >> this is a sad consequence of what the media is not doing its job. that it political cartoonist has to point out the factual basis of relevant debate. there's 47 million figure, it is never been really proven, in in fact a week after the administration rolled out the 47,000,000 were uninsured, were uninsured, they brought that number down to 37 million because they were gonna pull it out of midair. i think from what i have read and the investigation that was done at the time were talking

about 4% of people that were uninsured at the time. spirit. >> c-span: another one from 2008. you will see it with a woman standing there with an amateur over her head and she says i love : huskers of any of two women senators walking by. >> not to women senators -- and then their screaming amateurs and their sane senators. this is really on obama care. kind of a gift making an trading that was done to convince the senators to go along with this program. they basically had to bribe and change the rules to enact obama care. so that cartoon point that out. >> c-span: here's one from 2010. tells about the mad hatter. >> that is nancy blows your gsa you have to pass this bill so you can find out what's in it. and this is the most most

ethical congress ever. once again again it was based on this obama care scheme that the administration was going to push through in whatever way they could. this complicated bill that nobody had ever read was going to be passed and doled out to the american public without really knowing what was in it and what the consequences were going to be. >> c-span: the cut line is please remove these items from your person and it's from 2010. >> on the debate that's going on today which is on the fourth amendment, how far do we go to protect the general public and what constitutional rights to have to exchange for safety, which is, is, there's a real question as to the extent to that. the thing that defines america is our constitution and the liberties we have in the freedoms we have. hopefully the fear of this

danger from these terrorist groups will not overcome our common sense to redefine what america is. >> up there there in the corner on the badge it says tsa and then inside it says u.s. department of groping? >> that is when you had a number of stories where the tsa guy were getting a little bit touchy-feely. i heard a bunch of them got phone numbers two. >> c-span: here is 2014, the police, the police are keeping us down, explain this and what the art of this and what you're trying to do for the person who picks that up in the newspaper? >> the juxtaposition of the reality of what is going on in the black community which is the vast majority of homicides and killings are done by black on

black crime. yet, there are some other civic leaders who are blaming it on the police. as we have seen and just recently in the cases with the san bernadino and the policeman who led these people who could have been hostages out of the buildings, i would be willing to take a bullet for you first. the police really have a terrible job keeping us secure. it has been made harder by this movement that is blaming them for the irresponsible behavior of other people, certain circumstances obviously the police ought to be condemned for their overzealous for the horrendous things that happen. but in the vast majority of circumstances that are there to keep us safe. people should be reminded of that. >> c-span: here is 2012 and says that darkness rising. explain this one. >> guest: this one was directed toward a new generation of folks

that are being brought up in a different way than perhaps he and i were where we had a family unit, cohesion, personal person relationship. the new millennial's have a lot of violent video games, they communicate in ways and where they don't really see people anymore. i think when we have this incident which is this cartoon is about the shooting in colorado and the batman movies. the question was what change this person into this monster. the lack of of communication, the lack of human content, playing violent video games, these these are all questions for generation y.

>> c-span: this next one is complicated if her sit at home watching it it's hard to see it but it's from 2012, the headline is a weapon guide for the uninformed and average homicide or deaths per year per category and off on the left it looks like to be in ar 15. this weapon is the same as and as his military mass shootings in that it says 18 is that 18 people at the time. >> yes when i do this cartoon i wanted to compare the homicide rate and what type of incidents of murder are used with the damages. the, some of the progressive media think is they exaggerate things to fulfill their political agenda like this idea that these weapons that look like small rifles are assault rifles and there's a big difference between an automatic weapon where you squeeze the trigger and it fires off many rounds and these long rifles which are the same as any kind of hunting rifle that you squeeze the trigger it choose one bullet. so i want to compare and

contrast how many things their murders they have done with other incidents. you can see the blunt objects, handguns which nobody is talking about banning, drunk driving, people using their hands, feed in violent acts, auto accidents constitute far more deaths than these mass shootings. >> so for those listening and not watching auto accidents is 32000, rifles, 453 were killed, 6009 people killed by handguns, 674 by blunt objects, you have a hammer there. 1817 by knives, drunk driving 10,008 three nine, and hands, feet and hands, feet and this, 869. that is a one-year assume. >> guest: that is in one year. i think this distaste six came from the fbi. i think you were gonna have a debate about these issues you have to know the

facts. let's put everything on the table of bigger it out and then figure out exactly what were talking about. >> c-span: cartoon here from 2009. again the figures are small, explain what you see in this. >> guest: you have two indians and they're looking at the gators of the new world, one indian assigned to the other running bear, not another word about immigration reform, be polite our visitors. of course visitors. of course the motivation behind this is on immigration and how the indians probably did not worry about immigration back then and therefore you see who is dominating the world world. it's the time and in cheek play about what's going on in immigration. for some of us there's a delineation between immigration and illegal immigration. just like there's a delineation delineation between his mom and radical islam. they cannot figure out the difference between the two probably should not be getting our government.

>> c-span: that's a liberal cartoonist and by the way if you stack them all up how many are going to be conservative in this country and how many liberal? >> guest: probably 19 mac one. if there's one -- 9 - 1. >> guest: who are some of the leading liberalists cartoonist. >> there's not that many of them. steve went the other way, he started being very conservative but then the debate he had within his mormon church and he left the mormon church and is not very liberal. he has become very ogressive. were outnumbered. i outnumbered. i can name you half-dozen progressive cartoonist that i love, liberal cartoonist but when it comes to conservative cartoons there's only a handful. gary bartel of indiana, scott stain stainless in chicago which is more center-right than far

right. there's a ton retired the mccoy brothers, gary and glenn mccoy, think nate buehler is probably center-right there's just not that many. >> c-span: one of the most celebrated pentacle cartoonist at least in my lifetime is a man named her block. they did a documentary of him on hbo. here is her block he appeared on book notes in 1993, he is deceased and when he died he gave 50,000,000 dollars he he earned at the washington post or foundation. so here's her. >> here's a cartoon from the are 1950. the headline on the disc, you may not supposed to stand on that and write appear as mccarthyism.

>> apparently so, it's the first use of of that word that i know of, i remember i originated because i wanted to put something on that barrel and you could call it mccarthy on the south and mccarthy techniques and so on and and i said maybe use mccarthyism and it caught on. >> so how often has a cartoonist from your experience develops something like mccarthyism or some other terms. >> it happens rarely i imagine. >> to be honest with you i don't really look at other political cartoons at all. i do on occasion when my cartoons were not around for something and somebody says hey here's a cartoon but really all deal with the same issues, we look at the 24 hour news cycle cable come i just don't want to see what my competition is

doing, i want to deliver a message to my readers that's most important thing in my mind and i really don't want to see what anybody else is doing because i think working to talk about the same subject matter and i don't want to subconsciously adopt one of their ideas or anything like that. >> c-span: help and you find people that do not focus on what the politics are? the politics of cartoonist? >> because you and i are into politics, we think in that way, but i don't think the vast majority of americans actually think in that way. in fact, i'm really surprised as i give speeches around the country and i give speeches all the time, how closely unified the american people are. they're divided on a lot of financial issues but for the vast majority of things the americans are very much closer

together than people think. i think there's people and political organizations have an agenda that want to draw these people apart because it helps them. but there's more things that unify us then divide us. >> a cartoonist that it appeared many times over the years now 80 years old, still alive, pad, here -- this is back in 2014, david mccullough's on david mccullough's on the stage with them. i want you to see what he does when he is enjoying richard nixon and right next to him is lyndon johnson. >> i get that feeling that you have a good time doing that face. >> it comes back about once a year is a strange afterlife he has.

[laughter] [applause]. >> i did not know he was left-handed. [laughter] >> c-span: when you're growing up what cartoonists besides paul conrad at the l.a. times and others he mentioned did you pay any attention to and what about the drawing part of this, i'm going to show one in a minute where you have a certain way that you draw, how would you explain the difference. >> guest: my influences wherewith it ever was running in the newspaper and the people i like the back. that was one of them, i, i think pat is a

phenomenal political cartoonist. you know i can appreciate the art form itself and what it is meant to be which is a mechanism to influence people. regardless of what political party you are affiliated with a pet does it better than most anyone i know. i think jeff is in that category, jeff is a good friend and sort of a mentor, i have loved jeff's work, he added an element of humor that i think was a great tool in expanding the audience from a political cartoon which is something i try to utilize in my cartoon and the paul conrad because the dark, foreboding images that he have but they would reach you in touch you, i think that is what good effective cartooning is all

about. i view political cartooning almost like advertising on television. you have about five seconds to capture the viewer's attention. have another five seconds to deliver the point were to sell the product. the only differences with television you're selling a product, with political selling a product, with political cartoons are selling an idea. believe me, i believe that i'm trying to reach people. i believe i'm tried to change people's mind and reinforced the ideas that they have for a purpose. and that is my view of what the united states ought to be. the self-governing democrat of a republic is all about. the the power of america lies in its people and less government, more people the people should have the power, they should wield this power because of the political celebrities that we have today we forget that the politicians will work for the people not the other way around. >> c-span: back to cartoons from your book, this is is 2014, a familiar face will appear on the

screen and how have you drawn her. >> guest: hillary has been great. in fact i have to say the clintons are probably my favorite political family. i won my feet first pulitzer in 94 in the back of administration. this were she was saying i was dead broke, that will, that will be $200,000 please. >> she's at a podium. >> she was professing not to have money but yet she was making $200,000 per speech. the relationship bill has with his interns is probably the same relationship hillary has with the lack of being able to tell the truth. i think she makes for great political cartoons. >> guest: did you draw her on purpose the way she has little tiny mouth and teeth. >> guest: when you take a caricature of someone and political are tuning your change in the dynamics of their futures not only to make them into a

cartoon but a short the dynamics of a personality as well. if you notice in my president obama cartoons the more he is caught in prevarication the larger your his ears get. and you can see that in pat characters of richard nixon. as he got more moratorium watergate the shadows on his face got darker and his eyes got darker and pretty soon they're barely ice, they're they're just black holes in his head. >> c-span: i remember asking him how has jimmy carter change in your cartoons over the years and he is simply answer he said he's gotten smaller. at the end of that administration he was tiny and in the corner right.

>> the one thing that we have over our journalist colleagues is an exaggeration. we get to create our own world and the dynamic of that reflects on what were trying to say with a personality personality. >> guest: what did you go color? >> guest: when i left the l.a. times. investors business daily it's the best editorial page in the country. >> guest: you write some. >> guest: i do right thumb, gets managed editorial page there, it's an expansion of my duties and frankly we have great writers there. the one thing i love about our editorial pages as we are not afraid to tell the truth. people are giving praise to donald trump for his bluntness, but i've been doing that my entire career has a poetical cartoonist. and we do that on the pages of investors business daily. we daily. we want people to have the facts out there and then decide for themselves how they feel. >> and you're located where? spee2 were located in los angeles but were everywhere to new york, dc, i think a new think a new printing plant will

be in texas. >> c-span: i think i saw like a hundred 56000 daily circulation, is that hardcopy? >> guest: that strictly print. >> c-span: how much digital. >> guest: i don't know how much digital. but we've rapidly expanded. were reaching so many more people that way. >> c-span: here's a cartoon and it looks like you are cutting both sides, alan simpson a senator in the middle, and then some symbols commission and then you have a little tiny kid to the right with his formula there, cut spending. >> guest: this debt commission into how many millions of dollars they spent, to figure out the solution to this now $18 trillion national debt that we have in both can say it's very difficult and the one

saying it's complicated and the baby just saying quit spending. it's amazing when you look back at our budgets last time george w. bush was president we had a democratic majority in the house and congress and he was criticized for overspending which was right, i did cartoons against that as well. but i was looking back on that number in the last year when you had that configuration and the deficit was one 60,000,000,000 dollars. seven years later at the apex of the obama administration where they have a democratic majority in the house and senate, that, that deficit rose to $1.3 trillion. that's not even to mention the growth in those seven years of how much federal spending increase during that period of time. think at the time the time is like $2.4 trillion of federal outlay, maybe over

3,000,000,000,000 dollars over seven years. population growth was 4%. how big does this government have to be really. when you read these endless stories about the duplication of services, obama care has basically become an expansion of medicaid and is costing taxpayers a huge fortune. yet they are not receiving better services. now with me, it's about having a smaller more efficient government. the realization realization that we have a finite amount of capital left we can divided a couple of ways. we. we can either give it to the people that innovate and create jobs and they use dynamic economy to grow, or you can give it with bureaucrats who do nothing but shovel paper and are inefficient at what they do. >> a cartoonist who is deceased we did an interview with him in 2008 was probably as far left as you are right, i want to know what you think of this, he's not

the same kind of -- you saw mostly in magazines like the new yorkers and i think he also drew for the new york review of books. anyway, david levine. >> understand one of them was rejected by publication? >> no other than one publication was the nation in fact the nation was known among cartoonist that if you really had to try something or you wanted something that would be loaded in political terms, this was the place to go. and sure enough they printed kissinger having sex with the glow be in the head of a woman and it was to suggest that sexually this guy was screwing

the world. >> what you think, what you do something like that? >> now, i view it as a family newspaper so i think there is limitations of what we do. i want to reach a large audience reach a large audience as possible. i haven't seen a whole lot of what david has done, mostly does caricatures, but there -- i really love them. >> i am a hard right-winger i guess you could say, very conservative but i'm looking at these issues and i'm an equal opportunity offender, but it's about when you make these drawings how will it translate out to the audience and how many people can i reach. i think if you do something to crafts is going to be limited. now you could go into controversy about it but the

controversy itself is not always good. sometimes it overshadows the point you're trying to make. sometimes the hardest decision for an editorial cartoonist is not running a cartoon. there's a. when johnny cochran died, i thought of this great cartoon. the first image i thought of was johnny cochran in heaven and of course johnny had gotten o.j. simpson off on a murder charge so it these gates of heaven in st. peter saying i'm sorry johnny if the halo don't fit you don't admit. it was a natural idea but upon the best getting who johnny cochran was, seen all the things that he had done, he was a very generous person. involved in general activities, i can't define the man by one single action. so in political cartoons it's almost just as important to decide what not to draw as it is to decide what to draw. >> c-span: from 2012 the cutline the cut line is and there's plenty more where that came from. we'll see it in a second, with this? >> guest: this is on turning corn into ethanol.

one of the byproducts of that and we can go into the details of the inefficiencies of using corn-based oil because it take so much for lante created but what they didn't realize was in doing this you often limited the supply of food out there for third world countries. and they're making the cost of corn rise because they were use of the lysing corn for ethanol. so i decided to look at the conditions going on in the third world where corn is a very important element for them to survive and yet were doing it because we want to push this movement toward alternative fuels, even when it is an efficient and its creation. so i just showing the idea of the side effect of that. >> i read an account in your university of california irvine

alma mater publication that you used to have bill clinton, an imitation of of bill clinton on your telephone answering service. >> one of my dearest friends is paul shanklin who does the voice impersonation in fact i discovered paul, of all places in memphis, tennessee. i was invited to play golf. i have to tell you, hi sir serve because i'm from california, the surfing in memphis stinks. so friend of mine invited me to go play golf with a couple of his friends, is the first time i had ever played golf. fortunately there is one person who is more physically enough with a golf club than i was and i was leaning down to put in all of a sudden i heard ronald reagan coaching me on the spot and it was paul. and boy he was an amazing impersonator. so i hooked him up with the rush limbaugh show the paul, every

once in a while i would get him to record my answering machine and do different voices for my answering machine. i made the mistake once of giving him my coat of the answering machine and i actually had to get rid of that answer machine because in the middle the night he would change my messages and that created problems. in fact on sundays when i was doing usa today for monday's paul and i would get together and talk about parities and skits for his song parodies. and when i was strong starting to draw my cartoon i become focused and a normal in half announced to me paul would answer my telephone is me and laid on the day of the friends call me back saying what kind of medication are you are because you are speaking gibberish and i would say i haven't spoken to today at all, it was paul and my phone is me. so if you want an obnoxious rent, there's one for you right

there. >> c-span: al gore sold his television network, current tv to al jazeera for reportedly 500,000,000 dollars. you have dollars. you have a cartoon back in 2013, explain this one. >> guest: yeah l was saying. >> so i sold my station to an anti- american network, i always said i was for green economy. >> it was kind of i ran that al gore who was supposedly for the green movement turned out to be more of a capitalist than an environment along environmentalist. the fact i almost openly wept when al gore did not win the presidency because i think that would've been a fine thing for editorial cartoony. >> c-span: the next cartoonist from 2014 and its are complicated, it says on their it starts out with global cooling with a line through it on the

blackboard, forming, line 3, climate change a line through line through it and then climate disruption, under linux lane this one. >> guest: this was the rebranding of the global or the i should say the climate movement. first is called global cooling in the 70s and now it's global warning warming but then the earth has not warmed the first senior 20 years another have to change it to climate change and now even that wasn't good enough because now they want to change it to climate disruption in the little kid is riding on the bottom corner of the chalkboard is called weather. >> on the other side you have to see this up closer you have to buy your book it says climate is warmer and that crossed out and it says cooler for now. >> right because the climate has

actually been pretty constant last 15 years. one thing i like about that cartoon, got buy the book is if you look carefully at the very top it says e equals mc hammer. >> guest: this is one from 2009, speaking of slavery, explain this one. >> guest: this is on a government that has taken on the role of being sort of an nanny state. saying stop your lying, we'll provide for you, just what we ask. if we do exactly what you asked we might provide you some healthcare. so it's the plantation mentality of a government that oversees everything that we do. i was up in new york and having breakfast and had a city person guiding me to make sure i do not use too much salt on my eggs. >> c-span: 2011, this cartoon, what are you saying here? >> guest: when you think about clarence thomas there's a lot of criticism. i'll use him as one example, i, i love clarence

thomas, some of his writings is amazingly in-depth analysis of everything. and yet they criticize him because he never asked questions during the supreme court hearings. it seems to me when you look at these conservative african-americans that are to be modeled for the community, the mainstream media negated they are or their members within political organizations, their negating who they are because by virtue of what their skin color is. i'm one quarter spanish, 11 half japanese, completely confused. i think we need to move beyond this idiotic idea that race out to be a determining for anything. as discussed before i have two brothers and two sisters and they're all extremely intelligent, kind people, the exact opposite of me. we come.

we come from the same genetic material. i think at some point work and a half to move beyond these things. >> i'm in a go beyond this for second and some people listen to this and i want you to ask when with her looking. >> what they're looking at is back in the 50s they discriminated against blacks by having refrigerated water for the white and having these very poor water delivery for the blacks. i'm saying that there are certain political people in the hemisphere have done the same thing to conservative blacks, that kind of discrimination is going on today. the kind of things they're allowed to say about people like clarence thomas or ben carson, i think it's horrible. >> c-span: you might find this interesting, i'm not sure i will will pronounce eric, his name is boer zoom -- former l.a. times

baghdad bureau chief. back in 2007 talking about and talking about an iraq he cartoonist. watch this. >> this is a very pulling it one. it just shows a scene where the u.s. soldiers aiming a gun at an iraq a guy then you have uncle sam trying a portrait of this theme but instead of a gun he is handing the flour to the iraq he guy. i asked whether he thought this sort of cartoon was inflammatory or because too much trouble and he sort of laughed at me and he said i go online and i check out the american cartoonist and the stuff they have about bush and u.s. foreign policy and american domestic and international politics it is far more critical and nasty than anything i have ever drawn. >> what you think? spee2 there's a bunch of of us who got to visit with ronald reagan in the rose garden when he was president. he had a wonderful joke where he said t difference between the

united states and the soviet union is the united states political cartoonist kandra political cartoons on the president of the united states. the soviet union the political cartoonist have to draw political cartoons on the president of the united states. that is one thing that we have here that is so amazing about this country is the freedom of speech and freedom of information that you can effectively criticize those people that run the government. they really differentiates between who we are and what other countries are. a bunch of of us went down to cuba and i had got me opportunity to talk to the information minister. i asked him about questions about the brothers in arms fight about the journalist who was arrested and people were handing out petitions simply to talk about democracy. and refuse to answer any of those questions.

so i said let me ask you one last question, talk to your reporters and some of the cartoonist there and they're not allowed to draw images of fidel castro, they cannot draw these images in america, we believe that a country that cannot make fun of its leaders is a country that is imprisoned by its leaders. so let me ask you this one question, what is your favorite fidel castro and joe? this face just went white. little went white. little beads of sweat gathered on his four head and he finally said, i don't no one but i will tell you one later. that's the difference between the united states and the freedom that so many people have sacrificed for to ensure, we have boys, men and women out there that are fighting to guarantee our liberty and freedom. the freedom that we take for granted. i don't think any other cartoons have it i think it's a very

cherished responsibility to use this freedom to educate the masses, to make sure they understand that this government works for the people. >> here's a cartoon, you made some people who have an iranian connection mad at you for this, and i don't know what title called the cockroaches. >> right now this cartoon received a lot of criticism. if you look very carefully on the cartoon on the bottom of the grill it talks about terrorism and specifically about extremism in iran. >> is the country of iran and it has a sewer lid over it and cockroaches coming out of it. >> and on the sewer lit i think it says extremism is really talking about a very specific segment of the population of iran that is responsible for engendering the surrogates of

evil and spit spreading chaos in the region. i did did receive a lot of criticism but what i said that was iran is responsible for a lot of the chaos that's going on. this expansion of violent extremism started in iran first. you can argue that saudi arabia was also doing the same thing. but these groups we look at the population the average age is 28 or its pro-western but the theological dictators of that regime and the revolutionary regard are between chaos and evil. >> guest: one of the things is that it shows the cockroach is spreading to afghanistan iraq and syria and israel in the gaza strip and pakistan and all the countries around it. what may people the maddest about this?

>> i think the iranians were mad because they characterize the country as a whole has a refuge for cockroaches. i was very specific and extremist. i think. i don't think people realize this expansion, is very dangerous when they become a nuclear power, a mutually agreed discussion only works when the other side doesn't want to die. because of this nuclear arms race as can be going on in the region the region has lots of oil money but very little reference for human life. it will become become a much more dangerous world. >> one last one, this is 2014, you see it on the screen, this is the world trade center, you have people falling to their death and the one fellow says, how do you feel about enhanced interrogation? this will be the last one so explain this one.

>> this caused a lot of feedback to. >> and i'm not afraid of the feedback, there's a little question as to the responsibility of our intelligence services to figure out where these dangers of terrorism are coming from and i think when you look at this war that were involved in, this war on terror you can only be effective if you know what's going on the ground. by taking away the devices that allow you to figure out what the machinery is that is generating this terrorism, you exposed to danger. no new look at waterboarding, we go through water board training, i don't think it's torture frankly, but if you just blow up terrace and you don't find out who they are, how they're connected, the san bernadino case we got there electronics, we can put together a trail of who these people are, that's a

much better way to secure her safety. spee4 one last question. how did you get dick cheney and rush limbaugh try to forward and afterward? >> guest: i'm honored to say that i become friends with dick and lynn cheney. friends of mine i've had him over for dinner and got to meet them. i was not a fan of the vice president than his view on politics and of course rush i've had a relationship with him for a long time. that only with paul shank but prior to that. he's to run my cartoons in the lumbar rather letter. >> beside buying this book for 20 dollars, where can people see you on a reglan basis beside the invested business daily. >> guest: go to debbie debbie.investors.com/cartoons investors.com/cartoons you'll see my cartoons every day. you can give me a twitter at tunes and at facebook at michael rimer's. the book is a give me liberty or give me obama care.

. . ... >> talking about her documentary rosenwall about the life of american business and the owner of sears row bucking community