imans in the united states. they are much more careful now because they know they might be listened to. there is a bookstore on capitol hill that still sells audio and videotapes of osama bin laden. it is not necessarily radical, to the extent you would see books by adolf hitler or david dukes, you would call it a radical bookstore. the availability of that material makes it a lot easier for anyone to read it and become in viewed with this hatred for the united states to the point where they might carry out violence. host: joe lieberman wants google to crack down on the web sites.

guest: there is a free-speech issue. i am not a lawyer. inside the united states there are more protections for websites them outside of the united states. central command in tampa created a new digital command designed to respond to conspiracy theories and paranoia disseminated against the u.s. that mobilizes radical moslems. they spent hundreds of billions of dollars doing this, responding quickly to any website. at the same time, the pentagon and lights as guests of the pentagon the very same groups that spread the same paranoia, the notion that there is a war against islam and you should not cooperate with the fbi. we try to fight it, and

internally we enable the enablers. host: this is from one of our viewers -- guest: that is a good question. we will find out soon. host: why do you say we will find out soon? guest: there are numerous inquiries, and i understand there is a response forthcoming from the pentagon and the cia. the fact is anwar al-awlaki, according to our investigation, found -- was found to be delivering radical speeches as early as 1999 in sacramento. -- san diego. he continued to deliver it in northern virginia, where two of

the hijackers followed him. there was always suspicious that he was connected to the 9/11 hijacking but never convicted. at the same time, he gave speeches proclaiming his belief in peace and moderation. i am coming up with a new documentary called "the grand deception." it is about the deception perpetrated by radical islamists into deceiving the public, the media, the congress come up law enforcement, hollywood, into thinking they are moderate, but behind closed doors that are militant and terrorist-oriented. host: an independent in largo, florida. caller: since you were last on c-span, mr. emerson, it has come thatf b the stick -- out the state department wanted to revoke the visa of the underwear

bomber. patrick kennedy said so in congressional testimony. we also see that his suppose it handler, anwar al-awlaki was killed by a predator drown in yemen by order of the president, no judge, no jury, and his 16-year-old son was slain along with him. how long do you think it will be before a predator grown or a federal agent directly kills an american city because the president thought he probably might be a terrorist? guest: you raise some interesting issues, but i do not believe anwar al-awlaki was a cia plant. it is definitely true that the u.s. try to recruit him when he came in from yemen and flipped

him to be a witness against another indebted terrorist. -- another indicted terrorists. he refused as far as the drum, the justice department wrestled -- read -- he refused. as far as the drum attack, the justice apart and wrestled with this. they did not take the decision lightly. i do not think you will see any american killed by a drowned in the united states, but if another anwar al-awlaki emerges that his u.s. citizenship and sanctuary in yemen, and starts sending terrorists into the united states to carry out acts of terrorism, i guarantee you almost any president will take the legal prerogative of trying to eliminate him. at that point you have to

understand the person is outside of the united states, they have renounced citizenship, and are not eligible to the constitutional rights you and i would be. host: james, a republican. caller: i am running for united states senator. there is no bigger threat than barack obama. i gave a speech on february 1, and i said he broke the law. he brought secret service agents to my home after i declared a was running for united states senator. there is no bigger threat than barack obama. host: chris, a democrat in boston, massachusetts. caller: i would like to remind viewers that this self- proclaimed experts told us the

oklahoma city bombing was the work of radical islamists. the only thing we need to know about steven emerson is that he is a promoter of the israeli interests and that should disqualify him from being on your program. guest: i have three heads, six legs, and control the world. that was the allegation made by a democratic party cinquain alleging that i and nine other individuals created the climate of fear against muslims simply because we hated them. the me say this, the only reason there is disproportion suspicion -- let me say this, the only reason there is disproportionate suspicion against muslims is because nearly 65% to 70% of all international casualties are. out by radical islamic

terrorists. -- are carried out by radical islamic terrorists. as far as oklahoma is concerned, for the record, i was repeating what law-enforcement said and was bleeding at the same moment within minutes after the bombing because we have experienced a similar bombing two years before in new york city. when it was found out that it was a white, militant member of a radical group, actually it was a lone wolf himself, i immediately said the feds had gotten the right to get, timothy mcveigh. -- the right guy, and timothy mcveigh. this is something radical islamic groups have been using against me. i daresay my record, if you look at my documentary and 1994,

every single one of the terrorist identified in 1994 were ultimately convicted, deported, prosecuted, or in other ways punished by the u.s. government as an islamic terrorist. even though at the time i made the film, everyone said including the groups you are setting, there is no such thing as islamic terrorism. host: this is from t.j. guest: there have been allegations to that effect. you need to be more specific. i am not against free speech, which is a " hate speech." it is everyone's right to say i hate america, or death to christians, americans, jews.

that is said tens of thousands of times around the world. we have rallies on tape where people worse than death to israel, and death to america. that is protected speech. also, your home is protected unless there is a criminal predicate if there is knowledge today home, an office, an individual, or a building -- predicate. is there is knowledge that a home, and office, or a building his house in someone that could carry out an attack, surveillance must be approved by a judge. host: florida. good morning. caller: any other country would not allow millions and millions

of illegal aliens to come into this country. there were news reports the 66,000 terrorists come across the mexican border every year. they're not doing anything about it turned the host: is that statistic true? -- about it. host: is that statistic true? guest: i do not think anyone knows the real number. there is a national security problem with eagles coming into the united states because within that bunch of eagles coming in, you have a smaller percentage of people that threaten national security. there is another euphemism i learned about. it is called otm. it means other than mexican. he is a euphemism used to

describe middle easterners that come in illegally. they have found thousands of people coming in from mexico that i've come from hezbollah, hamas, -- from mexico that i've come from hezbollah, -- have come from hezbollah, of mexico, hamas. host: this is from one of our viewers. guest: i would disagree with the promise. first of all, when you say it is a recruiting tool, guantanamo bay did not exist before 9/11. if it is a recruiting tool, how do you explain the 9/11 attacks, or the 1998 bombings, or the 1993 bombing of the world trade

senator? you cannot explain it away simply because there is guantanamo bay or torture, or anything like that. i think you have the chicken and egg problem here. guantanamo bay was established because you have a new status of combatants. they were not fighting for a nation. they were not sovereign army. they were not subject to the geneva accords, especially. they were conductance we have never experienced before, and we needed -- comeback since we have never experienced before, so we needed to establish a base where they could be held. guantanamo bay was built to house them. i have been down to guantanamo bay, and i can tell you this much. in the years since it was built, it does become a three- star or four-star palace.

i'm being facetious, but there are treated humanely. their rights may have been violated to the extent that if you were in an american -- an american citizen, and put in that camp, your rights might be violated, but if you went through on a act of terrorism, you would be allowed to put in that camp. host: james, a democratic caller in tennessee. caller: thank you. in the last few days we have noticed that rupert murdoch has resigned from the newspaper. host: his son has resigned. caller: yes. they have accused -- of an accused of from hacking -- phone hacking.

anyone who believes they're not doing damage to our country. host: i think we are off topic. bishop, an independent. you're on the air. caller: please give me a chance to finish my idea. the reason i would like that is because i have seen you identify things like denial, minimization, justification. also, i see the government does not address the part it plays in whatever cause and effect is going on. we of bases all over the place. we a people in america who have been killed by the fbi. one in detroit here.

the fbi could not find anything on him. host: let me get a response. guest: he was resisting arrest. he shot a police dog. he would not come out when he was given full opportunity to come out. he did not. he violently resisted arrest. he was a threat to the safety and lives of police officers, and he was shot. anyone who is shot, it is a sad thing, but to claim he was innocently shot because he was targeted for assassination is simply an baloney. host: before we go, the impact of osama bin laden's death on al qaeda recruitment? guest: his legacy goes on. the internet makes you live forever. it gives you a guaranteed perpetuity.

host: steven emerson, thank you for being here. in our last hour, we turn our attention to charitable giving during this holiday season. we'll be right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] cracks in the name of the greatest people that i've ever been on this earth, i draw the line in the dust, and tossed the, before the feet of tyranny, and i say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever. >> for most of his life, george wallace was a supporter of segregation, outspoken against the civil rights unit. he ran for president four times and lost. when the effort was cut short by an assassination attempt.

if this week on "the contenders " george wallace. >> this past july 4 on a ceremony held in the boston harbor, simon winchester, author of a "professor and the madman" became an american citizen. have to confess i got one of the questions wrong. i have an australian friend that as of for citizenship, and i told her i got one of the questions wrong, and she said not the one about what color is the white house. it was about what is the

national anthem. i blurted out ", american -- america the beautiful." watched the interview sunday night on "q&a." the newly designed c-span website makes it easier for you to watch events live and recorded, and get our schedules so you can quickly scroll through the programs scheduled on the c-span networks. you can receive an e-mail alert. there is a section to access our most popular programs like "washington journal" and "the contenders." you can quickly find where to watch our networks on cable or satellite systems across the country that the all new c- span.org. >> "washington journal " continues.

host: stacy palmer is the editor of." -- "chronicle of philanthropy." is there an increase from years past in charitable giving and what is the prediction from 2011? guest: there was a drop during the worst years of the recession, a small increase lester, and the outlook this year is another small increase, which is not good, given that most nonprofits have not recovered the money they lost it -- lost. host: how much were they giving before the recession? we are showing viewers how it broke down for 2010. most gave 35% to religious

groups, 11% to foundations, public society, about 8%, human services, 9%. education 14%. is that typical? guest: it is, one of the big changes we have seen is the change in religious giving about one decade ago, 50% went to religious causes, and that share has shrunk. more people are putting money into private foundations, so when you see bill gates and george soros giving away a lot of money, that is where it is going. host: why has that changed? guest: in part because of the wealth of some of these people have, and the commitment some of these donors have, but also changing views about how people get into religious causes. i think there has been a change in religious affiliation. host: is there a technical or legal definition of charity?

guest: there is. you probably hear that term as a part of the tax code. you can get a tax deduction when you give to those groups. there are a lot of groups that are tax-exempt. host: what is the difference between a 501c3, and a 501c4? guest: a 501c4 can make contributions. there is a difference in how it -- can make deductions. there is a difference in how they're treated under the tax code. host: when elected the impact from charitable giving over the years, the green is inflation-

adjusted dollars. it goes up, and dips during the recession and a starting to climb back up. where were most of the cuts felt? guest: across the board. that is one of the things that has been so dramatic. almost every charity has suffered. they all say they are having trouble now. some groups are feeling more pain than others. it is not just the difficulty in raising money, but also the increasing demand for services. if that many social service groups they're raising more money because people are aware of needs, if they are also serving more people. one of the difficult things for food banks is a lot of people used to be donors are turning to them for services. the demand for help keeps going. >> individuals -- host: individuals gave 7% more.

what charities are the most popular? guest: there is in a mix of what people give to. things like united way and the salvation army are among the top fundraising groups and they have been raising money for years and years, but others give locally to charter schools that we might not have seen existing debt. it is hard for a new group to break in and make those really big bucks. it is rare for a charity that was established in the last 10 years to leap on a list. host: we have the top 50 ranked. you can see the ymca, catholic charities --

what about corporations and their charitable giving? guest: corp. said that a mixed record during the recession, and it is not surprising that those air doing well are the ones that are increasingly giving -- are the ones that aren't reaching cost surprising that those that are doing well are the ones that are giving. host: do they get a tax credit? guest: the same time they would get as individuals. host: do you see death as an incentive? guest: absolutely. -- do you see that as an incentive? guest: absolutely. that is not the only reason. companies want to give because they want to be associated with good causes.

host: so a tax reduction is not necessarily the first reason people give. guest: is not, but it is no important one. we see the debate on capitol hill where president obama has suggested it would be a good way to change the way the deduction works, and that as many charities and upset and concerned that at a time when giving has been falling dramatically if they do not feel like they need any more things that are disincentives to getting -- giving. host: we will delve into that more current first want to give the phone numbers to our viewers because we want to hear about your charitable giving. host: the chair is concerned about corporations and individuals losing that tax

deduction -- have there been studies to show how it would hurt? guest: studies have shown in a range of giving effects. some of them show a rejection of the -- reduction of $91 billion, which is not that much money. others suggest it could be $5 billion, or $7 billion. right now, we are talking among limiting the deductibility to about 28%, compared to the 35% six people can write off now. as for the wealthy -- that is for the wealthy donors. it is possible the other ideas could come up. the some symbols commission suggested changing the way it works -- the bowles-simpson commission suggested changing the way it works completely. it would be more fair way.

host: the deficit reduction committee, did they weigh in? guest: they have not said anything. it was clearly under discussion, and nonprofits were lobbying heavily to get their point of view across, so we didn't know where the thinking is right now, because the idea did not come together. it is not just the charitable deduction the nonprofits are falling. nonprofits get a lot of their money from the federal government. if there are big cuts made, many nonprofits will see a, as well. that is why they get concerned. from tinianhear syracuse, new york. donate sometimes because it makes me feel good to help other people, but someday i

may need dead also. host: ok. are you in the situation now? caller: i am not. i am the last of the middle class. i think soon we will be all in the same bubble. host: what percentage of your income to you give to charity? caller: high dollar items i do not use any more like toys -- i'd donate items i do not use any more like toys. host: stacy palmer, is there a correlation related to wealth? guest: in general, it is about 2% that americans give. that has not changed. people have a range of ideas about what they can afford to give. typically, some are giving much more than that.

host: sam is next in south carolina. caller: my favorite charity is the salvation army, and if you would permit me, i would like to give you a little story about why i love the salvation army. i am 60 years old, and i am disabled now, but i grew up in the 1950's, and a guy named jack was a young man with his wife, and he was from cincinnati. he came to south carolina with his wife martha, and he took over the boys' and girls' club there. that was in the days of segregation down south. they later became integrated. jack was one of the most beautiful guys. his older now, and has alzheimer's, but anyway, through

my growing up around here and my dealings with the salvation army, or just watching them operate, a lot of people have been wondering who they can trust and who they can not as far as spending their charitable dollars. host: we will leave it there. i want to show viewers totaled -- total charitable giving -- host: what is a foundation? guest: a foundation is an organized way of giving money. the ford foundation, the bill and melinda gates foundation are the famous ones people know about. it allows people to put money

away and decide where they want to give. foundations have to give it least 5% of their assets away every year. they cannot get involved in anything that is terribly political. they face administrative restrictions. very sick -- very serious donors want to do that. it is a good way for people to find out how to apply for money. host: are all your foundations charities? guest: yes, they are under that part of the tax code. host: are they accepting donations? the guest: that is the difference. a foundation can only expect money from a couple, a family. there are limited. a charity raises money from lots of different people. aboutwe're talking charitable giving.

if you look at the numbers, in 2010, it was $291 billion. look at what it was in 2006. jerome >> ino to pennsylvania. -- in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i watched your list there, and there were not any veterans' organizations listed. do you not keep track of the veterans' organizations that help the veterans? host: the list i was showing you was from a called the christian science monitor" so it was not our list, but ahead. caller: i'd done it to several different veterans' organizations and i get -- i am donates to a lot of different

veterans' organizations, and i get things to the mail, and ultimately my name and address and get sold to other organizations. some of them i tried to discourage them by sending back their request with a note to take my name off of their list. host: let's take that point. is that legal? guest: as soon as you say you do not want to be on the list the charity has to take you off. most nonprofits do not want to waste their money sending you things you do not want. one successful way that nonprofits raise money is through direct mail donations, even though on mind giving has become popular. -- of mind giving has become popular.

host: modesto, california. i rain. caller: my concern is the churches. they have gotten so big. do you check on the churches and the way they spend money? the people are kind and they believe in cherry, but i believe the churches have really -- charity, but i believe the churches have taken advantage of that because you can see how they have grown, and how rich they are. they have private planes to take leaders around and so forth. that is what i would like to find out, how do you check on the churches? thank you. guest: there are great ways to check on the churches. there is a group that really looks and what churches are doing, and making sure there are following financial rules as their name suggests. to be a member of the group you need to meet strict standards. one of the challenges his

church/state restrictions. you cannot ask for the same kind of information. it is important that donors as a lot of questions and make sure they are looking at legitimate groups. in a bad economy, some people who do not have the best of intentions are setting up scams, so you have to be careful. host: john, in fort lauderdale, florida, you are next. caller: having a barter system -- i was going to ask stacy palmer, if she is going to tell us there is no lobbyist behind this, with all this money involved, be careful what you say. host: lobbyists for charitable giving? guest: nonprofits are allowed to let their views be known about

policy issues and they do have lobbying. they are making their voices known about things like charitable deductions, and those things, but there are strict rules. one of the things nonprofits believe is the rules might be too strict, and they need to be updated. they have not been updated since the 1970's. host: ore., catherine, good morning. caller: i have donated my money, and i am low-income, and a senior citizen, and i am disabled. i make $694 a month, but i donated until this year to the wounded warriors, the paralyzed veterans, several sponsor a sponsored childs,

but i had to quit. .y money got so low if i had to quit doing what i enjoyed doing. they would send me if labels -- send me labels, which was very thoughtful of them. one send me a blanket that said believe in your dreams. i gave it to my next-door neighbor that just had a baby. host: is that a familiar story? guest: yes, a number of people heads to cut back, and i do not think any charity would s e to give more than you could afford to give. -- would ask you to give more than you could afford to give. if you should not feel bad if you cannot.

the other thing people to a lot is a volunteer. bedtime is incredibly important. one of the trends we have seen -- that's time is incredibly important. one of the trends we have seen is not just the old fashion volunteering, but if they have a scale like computers and building web sites, they help for nonprofits. host: this tweet . guest: nothing at all. there is an argument about what to call these organizations because people do not like identifying yourself is what you are not, as opposed to where you are. host: there are about 1.6 million tax-exempt organizations. what are those ste?

guest: charities are the bulk of that. under the code, things like the national football league, things we do not think about. there are reasons they are exempt from taxation. host: are public chair is different? indeed, that is a subset. -- public charities different? guest: that is a subset. host: there are about 514,000 others including the chambers of commerce. this is according to the urban institute. irv, illinois. go ahead. caller: i work for a non-profit

agency for four years, and i was very much interested in cutting costs, and i lectured to other agencies on how to determine whether agencies were using funds properly. i helped to set the standards of accounting and reporting procedures for agencies in the 1960's and 1970's. i was very familiar with all kinds of fund raising. i was very much against most of the direct mail organizations because of the tremendous costs. they were making money for the organizations providing direct mail service, and very little wind to the agency's parent -- very little ones to the agencies. i had a lot of situations where i looked into certain agencies, and when we did set up the standards of accounting

reporting, they were still able to get away with showing fund- raising expenses as programming expenses. i could talk for hours about this, but i will not bother you much more. they have an organization called giving usa, and i guess there is an offshoot of the that shows the amount of money that was being given to organizations. at the time i was working, about 85% of the charitable contributions when churches and religion. host: we will leave it there. stacy palmer? guest: i think he makes a lot of interesting points. one of the key things is nonprofits have lots of different ways of doing business. as a donor you want to look at how effective and efficient they are. they are required to provide that information. you can find their federal tax

return of mine and do your own research to decide if they are efficient or not. also, what are their results next people do not often ask those questions -- results? people do not often ask those questions. host: are they required to tell you? guest: they're not required, but they would be happy you asked. host: what about the oversight? guest: the irs is the agency that oversees charitable organizations, and that is why they have to file a tax return every year to say this is what we did with our money, disclosing how much they paid to top officials, and lots of other information that would be helpful in evaluating if they are living up to tax-exempt status. the states also regulate nonprofits. so often it will be in the consumer bureau. if you get fund-raising

solicitation that you think is funny, that is the kind of thing you would reports to your state. host: the attorney general's office? guest: yours truly, yes. host: ohio, welcome to the program. caller: thank you. have you folks ever read the book "only the super rich can save us" by ralph nader? it talks about how george soros and bill gates could really move the country with their influence. ralph nader would be an excellent person. i know he helps out a lot of these. the religious organizations from the early founding of our country persisted so much, but

now it is getting into the corporate base. therefore, by influencing the super rich and most wealthy foundations to bolster giving and provide giving, i think that as one of the best ways to do it. host: are there demographics to those that did? guest: absolutely. one of the efforts is the giving pledge that bill and melinda gates and warren buffett came up with. they have been visiting wealthy people around the world to encourage giving half of their assets away. a least 100 people have signed the pledge in the united states. certainly, the consciousness about giving money away is being raised.

host: victor has this tweet host: stacy palmer, what is "chronicle of philanthropy?" guest: recover non-profit organizations, are independent, and we do investigative reporting as well. host: do you specifically focus on charities? guest: non-profit organizations, all the groups under the 501c3 on block. host: what kind of stories are you working on? guest: we follow the economy, and things like the election, and whether presidential candidates are talking about nonprofits. we write about the techniques in charitable giving and

innovations. one of the things the recession has forced nonprofits to do is to look at how they do business. we tried to charge that. -- chart that. host: what are new ways? guest: there are looking at ways not just to rely on charitable donations, but to have their own income. you see things like food banks that train people in culinary skills to help them get jobs and provide services, so it works in lots of different ways. host: phil, in las vegas. caller: how easy is it to set up a 501c3? do we want to overwhelm your

staff with e-mail? i used to go door-to-door with a couple of different charities, and one thing that charities seemed to compare is the percentage that goes to the charity as opposed to collections. do you get -- do you consider that a fair comparison? there are certain things -- certain charities said actually employed people -- that actually employ people pretty well in the process as opposed to paying a staff salary. i just want to remind you about the website, and how to answer questions. thank you. guest: thank you. you can e-mail us at

editor@philanthropy.com lots of people are thinking about doing that. there is a great debate being waged about that right now. 12 billion -- million baby boomers want to think about starting their own nonprofit or an entrepreneur of thing that benefits society. that caused people to come out. some people think more charities need to be created, and others think plenty of existing groups need to be strengthened and there is too much duplication at a time when we have such slim resources. it is a big debate. the caller raises an important point about fund-raising costs and overhead. nonprofits are like businesses. they need to pay staff. they need efficiencies. they need good computer systems.

those are the kind of things that make you more efficient, and that costs money. when a way -- one of the ways people should be careful about evaluating them is making sure the company is well run. sometimes a low overhead rate is not necessarily a good sign. host: is it easy to set up a non-profit? guest: it is quite easy. there are rules to follow. you have to get the status from the irs, but compared to other things in life is relatively simple. there really hard thing is to keep it running and raise enough money, of volunteers, and staff. it is hard to keep up and really attract the finances that you need. host: this tweet

host: are there strings attached? guest: any donor can attach strings, and nobody has to except the money. with the bill gates foundation, one of their primary things is to improve schools. some people believe that is what they're doing, and some people do not influence on public schools is why it is such a big debate. host: is that something you are reporting on? guest: absolutely. host: pat in alabama to re -- alabama. caller: earlier year showed a chart of the percentage giving given -- percentages given to organizations. catholic charities was the

second. my question is is there a way to determine which education institutions or charitable institutions refuse to accept federal government money and the strings that come with that? if i wanted to make a donation to a college that did not accept federal money -- i am aware of the least one that does not accept how grants, the if -- pell grants, they finance students themselves. i would rather give to someone like that. is there a way to determine which charities do not accept federal funds? guest: the education department would have information on the colleges. there is not a great central place to find that, but you can look at the charity tax forms. they have to report that

information. there is a line that shows you where they're private donations -- how much a race that way. for many groups, that is all they get. they might not be eligible for government money. however, government money is more than the amount than people give in private donations. about one-third of the money comes from the government. host: two-thirds coming from private donations then? guest: people do not think about the fees that are charged for services. that is really the biggest share of money. host: taxpayers are putting up one-third of the money for foundations, nonprofit organizations? -- not foundations, non-profit organizations? guest: right. there are lots of different

ways individuals and citizens are helping to subsidize nonprofits, and the reason we do that is because we believe those organizations are providing good services to the community that we depend on. host: he and othertweet -- another tweet -- how much stays in the united states? guest: a big share is groups that are working domestically, but certainly nonprofits work abroad, so you see money going to international causes. one of the concerns a lot less people have had is in this bad economy will people still think about giving overseas? they have given strongly. we've seen a lot of generosity, but it is often hard to get the attention when there is not a crisis, but certainly there are needs every day that lots of charities are working on.

host: maxine, tampa, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i am on a fixed income, and i try to give to quite a few charities, however everytime i get something, i try to let them know this is a one-time donation, and to please not send me any more literature for the year. every month i continuously get requests for donations from the same organization, almost like it is a bill. when i send this information, they enclose an envelope that says no postage necessary, and i start putting that information back in the envelope and sending it back. there seems to be the only way i get them to stop. host: stacy palmer? guest: a legitimate charities

should take you off the list as soon as you make the request, but sometimes they make a mistake. you should let the charity know you do not want to be solicited and they should respect your wishes. host: is there a do-not-call- type list? is.t: there is pari -- there host: where could people go? guest: the state. if it is a local group, you should let the state attorneys general know. host: keys in arkansas. caller: good morning, ladies. i used to administer the gospel, and i give a lot of stuff to a lot of people, and i have all my life, but it seems to me i do not think we ought to have any

tax deductions for people giving stuff. i do not take it off my taxes because it seems like it is giving to the lord and asking for change that. guest: some people absolutely take that view, and a lot of people are not eligible because you have to itemize and a lot of people cannot do that. other people say it is increasing the amount their able to afford to give. nobody requires you to take the deduction, but certainly some people feel that as part of how they can afford to give more. host: one last quick phone call, steve thomas middleton, new york. caller: i have no inclination to think there are a lot of corrupting influences on the charitable organizations,

including a lot of the 9/11 organizations that ended up running off with the money. host: i will just take your point because we're going to run out of time. guest: steadily, lots of people are out there to do bad, and because juries are not that tightly-regulated it is -- and because charities are not that tightly-regulated, it is the type of scam where people are likely to give, things that make your heart strings poll. people will sometimes take advantage of that. you have to ask tough questions. if you're never heard of a group, those are the kinds of things that are warning sites -- science. lots of good groups could use your money well. there's no point in wasting it prepared -- it. host: stacy palmer, thank you

for being here. bad debts of four today "washington journal." -- that does it for today's washington journal -- today's "washington journal nature,." we will see tomorrow morning. >> here is a look at our schedule. next, supreme court justices stephen briar and entrance pallia testified on the role of federal judges. after that, a discussion on race issues in hollywood. then,