role in the 2008 financial crisis. a discussion on the unit -- u.n. ambassador nominee. >> when trayvon martin was first shot i said this could have been my son. another way of saying that is trayvon martin could have been me. obama offering comments not only on the trayvon martin case but the skies and a larger issue of race and race relations during a 20 minute speech at the white house yesterday. reaction has been mixed. we will offer you a chance to comment on the speech and

message the president delivered yesterday. here is how you can reach out foto us. you can also reach out to us on our twitter page, http://twitter.com/cspanwj. you can go to facebook.com/cspan. also if you want to post an e- mail to us, journal@c-span.org. you suck the speech leading up to the show yesterday. -- you saw the speech leading up to the show from yesterday. his advisers said the stir obama was anxious to confront the issue of race --

we will take a look at all of the various aspects and opinions on the speech that was made yesterday at the white house. it took place about 20 minutes before the start of the regular press conference. it can give your comments on as well. the phone lines reject -- the phone lines -- we sped off -- we have a special

line as well for african- american men. if you want to give us a call, that is 202-585-3883. social media is available to you . albuquerque, new mexico, democrat line, you are up first. this is dale. good morning. caller: the comment i wanted to make was i saw the speech by the president. this entire situation has been driving me nuts for over a year. society asis republicans want to make it. i am glad the president stood up. we are the people that elected him. said,lad he stood up and

hey this thing has to stop. paste trying to move this. it seems like people on the other side want to poll as back. host host: of all the things the president said yesterday, what hit home with you? caller: everything. we have kids acting like adults and adults acting like it. everything the president said hits home with me because he is right on the money. a 17-year-old kid has host: the right to walk to a store and back. next call from maryland, republican slime. -- republican's line. obama injected himself into what should have been a local case. he is trying to take advantage of it and take the intervention

-- take the attention off of other issues. the economy, the unemployment, all of these thigns are in shambles. yet he is provoking racial disharmony. there is nothing about this case that says george zimmerman did not act in self-defense. the jurors concluded that fact. host: he talked about the larger issues of race in his speech yesterday. caller: i think that you can't make a conclusiona bout -- conclusion about race in this country simply by an incident between george zimmerman and trayvon martin. president obama was elected twice.

there is apparently not that much racial division in this country. even blacks themselves have admitted that they think blacks are more racist than white. some poll was taken. they have verified that. most blacks will admit that. within their own society they are very racistl -- very racist. set aside a phone line for african-american males to give their comments. this is darren in virginia and caller:\ -- darren in virginia. caller: thank you. my first time i was watching c- c-pac.i caught

i remember all of the things they said about blacks on welfare. the one thing that i come to the conclusion is white folks do not come to the black men for a nything. they do not come to talk to us, they do not come to us for business, they do not come to us to share their wisdom or their understanding of how they see things. they do not want to talk to us. to go to anyyet black neighborhood in america. yesterday i heard them talk about all the murders in chicago. they are not even down there. there is a total separation of understanding in this case. host: your thoughts on the president's comments? caller: his comments are true. i have three sons. my youngest is seven. i had to explain to my seven year old that he cannot go some

places and do certain things because people might try to kill you. it could be my next-door neighbor. us as thistill see angry -- ic and am trying to raise my son right. we are all fighting for the same thing. america still -- there is a blindness that they want to hang onto, and exclusion they want to keep. it is the seating a lot of us. we are missing the point that whites, blacks, puerto ricans, muslims, catholics, all have a wisdom to share. host: this is jim off of twitter --

you can contribute on twitter as well. "the baltimore sun" in their analysis said -- very personal element to this age that he spoke about yesterday. here is a bit of it. [video clip] >> when trayvon martin was first shot i said that this could have been my son. another way of saying that is trayvon martin could have been

me 35 years ago. when you think about why, in the african american community at least, there is a lot of pain around what happened here, i think it's important to recognize that the african american community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and history that doesn't go away. african very few american men in this country who have had the periods of being shopped in a they department store. that includes me. there are very few african american men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks

clicked on the doors of cars. that happens to me. at least, before i was a senator. there are very few african americans that haven't had the experience of going on the its -- going on the elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had the chance to get off. that happens often. twitter -- the president making a speech on issues of race relations. a line is set aside especially for african-american men this morning. 202-585-3883. democrats line, little rock, arkansas, bill, hello. i am a criminal defense attorney here. i followed his comments and

amazingly they were in accurate. charles barkley and bill cosby agreed with the verdict. this was a trial held in florida, this wasn't a national issue. in little rock where we live we formed a neighborhood watch group. 98% of the crime in this area is by young black males. they were breaking in these houses, stealing things in this area. i did not care whether they were black or white but we had to form a neighborhood watch group. these people who robbed these 7- eleven's, who take things out of their racees, happens to be black males. if you look at the facts in

this, the reason why people are watched is because the people who are committing the crime in males.a our young black are we supposed to look at young, white females? the message you got from the president's message yesterday? caller: i voted for him twice but the message i got was he is telling me he does not understand why people are profiling. it is because the people who are being looked at are just like the people who are committing the crimes in the area where they are being watched. i do not understand it. line set aside for african-american men, rockville, carolina. the black criminal mail was created after the civil war. --y made lack life a legal

black life illegal in order to get blacks to pick cotton. lawyers were racist. instead of showing the picture oft -- instead of showing the picture of trayvon with little girl they chose to show him with his shirt off. he brought the lady from the neighborhood whose house was broken into by a black male. they type that into trayvon. trayvon did not write into her house. it was somebody else. -- did not break into her house. it was somebody else. self- zimmerman was consciously racist. if it was a white child he would have given him a ride. so president obama's

remarks yesterday -- theer: they were right on money. they won your license, check your tag -- run your license, check your tag. if white people were get a hold get pulled over the rate of black people -- --t: on facebook gale joins us from vermont, independent line. thank you for c-span. i am calling to say that i heieve president obama is --

is raising an issue that has long been ignored. i have a daughter in college who is reading it look -- reading a jim crowed, "the new laws." there is a different way of approaching these issues. i voted for president obama and i am proud he is raising these issues so that we can all look at them. we need to recognize what is truly happening. host: what do you think he added to the conversation from speech yesterday? i think that it is completely fair for him to raise these issues. it could have been himself. he would not be here to represent those who believe in him. it could have been his son. . have latino daughters

it could have been them. i believe this issue needs to be addressed in many ways. we have not done that. host: one of the commentators is a black professor of linguistics at the columbia university. he said he felt -- mike is up next from lincoln, illinois, republican line. real briefly i want to racialt this was never a

issue, race was injected into this situation. i think george zimmerman was guilty of something. i watched about 98% of the trial. i believe he was guilty of something, the facts from the prosecution did not support second-degree murder. as far as the president's remarks, i think that the fact that those remarks were being made by this country's first ever twice elected a resident -- twiceeak volumes elected black president should speak volumes on how this country views racism. democrats line. caller: i think the president was right on with his remark.

i raised a son, i told him to most important thing a mother can do is to make sure that her son does not get killed, make sure he does not go to jail or prison and get as much education as he could in him so he could have a decent life. a jury that is all white will never be a jury of my peers. i see that a lot. how many times in america have we had an all-black jury? i have white friends and when i talk to them about my experiences they could not relate. they have never had to go through that. i began to realize that they just did not understand that those people who were feeling like those juries were racists, even the people do not realize

themselves, you cannot relate to what you do not live. african-american males committing crimes? they do not have fathers. the fathers leave them so we have to raise our boys so that he can grow up to be men and get married. the most important aspect of the president's speech yesterday? caller: the most important aspect is where he has told everybody that he himself has been subjected to that. host american -- most african- american men do not reach adulthood without experiencing that. i called the police chief in my town. you have to stand and fight for your children. that is one of the main things.

girls have a same-sex parent but boys do not. host: on the line for african- american men -- caller: i think the prosecutor through that trial. that trial. i think he threw the trial. there were white women on the jury. host: we are interested on hearing your remarks on the president's remarks yesterday. caller: i appreciate the speech. i can have a suit on walk past -- suit on and walked past

females who will grab their purse. can you have the prosecutor on the? i think each through that trial. -- i think he threw that trial. on "the washington post," --

next call is jean on the republican line. i was born in alabama. i have a lot of black friends. i would like this country to whoever doess, the crime does the time. everybody needs to be treated the same. get up inent does not arms when there are several policemen killed by young black men. does that mean all-black young men are bad? it does not. notcome the president did address that? he is black and they are white. let us get it all on the same

side. tell the truth like it is. i am sick and tired of people not standing up and speak their piece because they are afraid of the naacp. you are either right or wrong. it black man confronts anyone or a white man confronts anyone and says you have a problem, if you have a hoodie on at night i do not care what your skin color is. dan is on south dakota. -- in south dakota. caller: martin luther king was one of my heroes and i was involved somewhat in the civil rights movement. i found that black people today rejected his beliefs of judging a man by the content of his character. through theonly see prism of race.

i reject obama and eric holder's entire philosophy. black people in this country -- 13% of the population commits 50% of the murders. blacks kill blacks 90% of the time. a black is much more likely to kill a white than a white to kill it black. we have to start telling the truth. the welfare state has created this. fatherlessness has jumped up dramatically since lyndon johnson. this is all because of the liberal welfare state. host: anything specific to say about the president's speech yesterday? is a racist.nk he i think eric holder is a racist. from san diego on the

democrats line -- i cannot believe the last two collars. moving on from there. the biggest thing that obama did for us yesterday was remind us that there is another side to george zimmerman. for three weeks we have heard about how scared he was because this black teenager in a hoodie was in his gated neighborhood. we have been hearing about how got hise was, how he nose bleed and the cuts on the back of his head because he could not fight. for three weeks we had to listen to this bid -- to this. your previous callers called him a thought. resident obama told us there is a different side to this story -- african-americans and white people are in the streets telling the rest of america

there is something wrong in this country when you can take a gun, shoot a kid in the heart when he was doing nothing wrong. all of these people are calling in this morning talking about -- what criminals all black people are, showing they are racist. trayvon martin was not doing anything wrong. his parents are honorable, articulate people that are dignified. president obama, after they spoke up, spoke up for them. good for him. conservatives are so cynical, so uncaring, so hateful, they are bringing us all down. i am sorry for being so upset by it. host host: reginald in burning hand, alabama -- in burning man -- in birmingham alabama.

you have these white people come in with a lot of crimes that they sweep it under the rug. they want to put a black man on the news and tv and make us look real bad. the what people do just as much as we do. did you get specifically from president obama's speech yesterday? caller: he told it like it was. he is telling the truth. he lived them and he knows what he is talking about. host: ken larson on facebook this morning -- brett from washington dc, republican line. astute inam not that most things but i cannot remember a president who was capable of saying they have made

a mistake. feel like obama is articulate and i voted for him twice. he has dug himself a hole as far treatedgoes with this -- with this. the women are right, they want to keep their sons out of jail. -- i knowe black men they must talk to each other and feel like they are learning how when they goeven to jail and commit violence. i am lucky i have a clean record because i have been assaulted by big black guys with a baseball mother i had to watch my come into the living room come up -- into the living room beat

up by a gang of guys because she stayed in the wrong town too late. if you are a man you have to be ready to meet confrontations with out committing a crime unless it is absolutely necessary. obama has just failed these things. you can tell he is not comfortable trying to make up for the mistakes and things he has said about the stuff. host: if you are just joining us, the president made statements yesterday about the trayvon martin case and the larger issues of race relations. we are asking your comments on them for the next 15 minutes or so. if you want to give us a call on the line, they are typically -- we do lines by political groups.

"the baltimore sun" has a piece -- the president also taking the time in his speech yesterday to address issues on specifically how america needs to help

young american men. [video clip] the am not naive to prospects of some grand federal program. i do recognize that i do have some power as president. there are a lot of good programs being done across the country on this front. . for us to be able to gather together is his leaders and elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes and figure out how do we do a better job helping young african- they aremen feel that andll part of this society that they have pathways and avenues to succeed, i think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic

situation. we are going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that. laid the president also out some ideas as far as going forward and some of them are captured in the transcript provided by "the washington post" of the speech yesterday -- greg from chesapeake, bertini on the independent line, thank you for holding. i believe the president took this opportunity as a political move to try and get attention off of his feelings. the fact that he potentially has liability, he potentially has ofbility in the deaths

potentially hundreds of people on the mexican border. the most important details that nobody is mentioning in this trial was that trayvon martin was on the phone with his girlfriend. he said he was home. he was at his father's house and then he said he needs to go check out this person, referring to zimmerman. he should have gone inside area and -- inside. he went out after zimmerman and was seen beating the guy. the back of the school was the most honorable heart of the skull to injure the brain and he

slammed his head into the concrete. president's speech was to do what? compelling most thing i noticed in the speech was he came out and said he is not taking any questions. he never takes any questions. us as a pretext that he is willing to talk to media when in fact he will not take any questions on the difficult issues and the scandals that are going on. onwon't take any questions the real stuff. the 56 black with men that were murdered in chicago by black men. the civil rights prostitutes are

blowing this thing out of proportion, putting this on the brink of racial strife. host: baltimore, maryland, republican line. caller: this is the reason the country cannot move forward. some of the comments that your callers, it seems to be for dominantly white men making on how the black man feels or what he should be doing. they are making all of these statements about welfare. i do not understand why c-span does not get out the facts that there are more white people on these programs then there are blacks. there are more white people --

we are focusing on the president's speech. caller: we are focusing on what his speech meant to them. he is race-bating, that is not the case. what he said is spot on. as a black man i went through the same things he talked about. like he said most black men went through what he talked about. host: do you think he changed te conversation at all? was put aat he did light on the conversation. people try to ignore it and think it is not a problem or hasn't been a problem. it has been a problem for most black men at the age of 16 and above. truehe said, it's statemetns for people to comment that he is

only concerned about black me, that is the only thing they are talking about. benghazi has gone on and will go on. when these foreign service officers go overseas they know the risks. host: this is off of twitter -- more minutes five of your comments, taking a look at some of these issues. a couple of stories from the papers. republicans passed a bill friday to reduce the federal role of public education --

this is in the new york times this morning, on the topic of drones.

we go back to calls on president obama's speech yesterday and race relations. democrats line, good morning. -- i havehaven't got got a few things. i do not have any colored friends, i don't want any colored friends.

i have lived here all of my life. i lived here back in the 60s. you did not see white people out -- in theeets saying streets in oakland after the tiles out there. every time the president opens his mouth about race he makes it worse. the best thing he can do is keep his mouth shut. if they want to change the laws in the state, let those people in those states change their laws. with jesseget up jackson and the rest of them, a platform for them to get up on and say there has been nothing done phrase was in this country, i think it is wrong. -- nothing has been done race- wise in this country, i think it is wrong.

host: the line for african- american males -- caller: the most important aspect was what if trayvon had a gun and decided to stand his ground? what if african americans said they were going to arm their men this would have been different if trayvon had been marred -- had been armed. we hear whites talk about african-americans. they always talk about welfare. they never look at the context of benefits under the new g.i. bill that disproportionately went to whites. eligible.en't i think the president touched on a whole lot of things that we need to consider and think about in america.

have -- in terms of things we do that we need to address. not to address this issue where this young man was washing -- walking home and not troubling anyone, it is completely ridiculous. george zimmerman needs to be held accountable in some way. clearly the results of the case showed that she could not have been found guilty of murder. there must be something put in place where the laws can be looked at and someone who is and a chorus or -- is an aggressor is accountable. host: one more call, j from kentucky on the independent line. don't think the

president wanted his attention focused on detroit. host: we will continue on the topic, specifically on stand your ground loss. we are going to look at the impact the laws have on the states that have them. two guests will join us on the discussion for that. later on in the program the securities and exchange commission kicked off its case against goldman sachs trader , we are going to talk with bob van voris from bloomberg on what the sec is doing to judge these cases stemming fromt he fin -- from the financial crisis. we are going to take a look at these issues when "washington journal post quote returns -- "washington journal" returns.

♪ >> in 2003 in an article you recommended a historical reckoning with crimes committed or sponsored by the united states. which crimes were you referring to? which decisions taken by the current administration would you recommend for such a reckoning? >> thank you senator and thank you for giving me indication to respond to that. i, as an immigrant to this country, think that this country is the greatest country on earth am a as i know do you. i would never apologize for america, america is the light to the world. we have freedoms and opportunities here that people dream about a broad. i certainly did. quote, one to that

of the things that had moved me, senator isaacson spoke very critically about the obama administration's response to the rwanda genocide. president clinton himself has come forward and expressed his regret that the united states do not do more in the face of the genocide. when i travel to we wanda, having been very critical -- to rwanda, having been critical, i was stunned to see how his response had resonated with them. ofam -- theation tonation of smantha power united nations ambassador tonight at 10 a.m..

and on c-span3's american ofory tv, the history u.s. political parties. sunday at one. >> "washington journal" continues. host: for the next hour we are going to take a look at stand your ground loss. joining us is jon lowy. .lso joining us is john lott thank you for joining us. way we found it, a simple definition when it came to stand your ground loss and the united states goes a such, allow any individuals who are in any place they have a legal right to the to use deadly force if they feel threatened with bodily harm or

death even if they have the ability to flee the confrontation. how have you seen this applied across the united states? caller: we traditionally had defense where -- a number of problems arose. one is ambiguity about what it means to retreat as far as possible. there are cases where somebody and retreat prosecutors thought they could have retreated further. essentially had a stand your ground since they have been states. a person believes they are in imminent danger or serious injury, the only thing is are they required to retreat as far as possible? most of the states in the country, 30 states, have some form of stand your ground in terms of legislation or in terms

of court decisions. what would you add to that? guest: there has been a right to self-defense in the law for as long as we have had laws. there was a logic to it. they also had to take reasonable measures to avoid conflict. the law was intended to save lives, to prevent crime. the nra and the corporate friends pushed these stand your ground laws. i do not have the full name. lot of major corporate funders pushing very conservative agenda and stand your round was part of the legislative portfolio. what it did was it took out the requirements of people to reasonably avoid conflict. what it created was incidents like in the george zimmerman

, whatever the facts were, what was clear was mr. zimmerman could have remained in his van, he could have avoided confrontation in any number of occasions, but he did not have to do that. since he had a gun he knew that if he got in an encounter the worst that was going to happen and pulled the fight out the gun. air is a reason why the attorney's office -- there is a reason why the attorneys office composes these loss from the beginning -- these laws from the beginning. even the president's statement yesterday indicated that the gun was not raised as a defense. no matter what you think about the other aspects of the case,

zimmerman was on his back. there is no place for him to go and retreat when he fired the shot. any type of reasonable standard was the he believe he was in imminent danger or threat of serious injury? the jury did not make any other decision about whether it was possible for him to retreat. that was the question asked of the jury. law: 30 states have this and florida passed it in 2005. other states have put them in since then. have we considered this law even before the zimmerman case? guest: we at the brady campaign oppose this law from the get-go. we thought it was a bad idea. prosecutors and police oppose it as well. i think that while mr. zimmerman did not assert a stand your ground defense, if he had he

would have had to take the stand at a hearing, which clearly he did not want to do. jurywas in the discussions. they were instructed that he had the right to stand his crown and defend himself. one juror specifically mentioned the fact that mr. zimmerman had the right to stand his ground. host: the subtext of this? prosecution did not argue this, the defense did not argue this, the whole reason it was included in the jury instructions was that it was part of the normal self-defense statute that was there. there was not an emphasis put on this at all. the fact that this has been made

to be an issue is kind of strange. i have not heard eric holder, i say not heard anybody going exactly how the stand your ground law would be relevant. just one comment about police, there is a survey that has been done by 400,000 police officer members in the united states. he had something like 70% of the police they surveyed that supported stand your ground laws. i do not know what survey you thinko relate to read i that the general issue is one of confusion. you have a relatively simple line with regard to stand your ground. i can give you cases in oklahoma -- i can give you cases. in oklahoma there was a case where a man was knocked down by a robber. the robber knocked him down again and a third time. this gentleman is trying to run away from the robber.

only after that third time he pulled out his concealed handgun and fatally shot the robber. prosecutors argued it was still possible for him to retreat even further. that is the type of thing where you go and impose a type of possible ambiguity, you make them have to wait too long for them to be able to defend themselves. is one, does it deter crime, and two, what about the safety of the individuals that are there? that seems to be the bottom line. you can bring out the racial aspects and other things. on those first two points i think the data is pretty clear. there have been studies

studiede went out, they the effect of stand your ground and showed that stand your ground has led to an increase, a significant increase in homicide with no deterrent effect on other crimes. it is certainly a negative. have a surveyed particular cases in florida found very disturbing results. been applied to get drug dealers and other criminals off the hook. there is a racial disparity in the application were basically there is a great difference between if the victim is black or white. there are huge problems both in the broad picture and -- host: we are going to continue

this conversation until 8:45. if you want to call in it is -- you can tweet us questions as well, [video clip] .-http://twitter.com/cspanwj yesterday the president talked about the statements am a possibly looking at them. we will play with the president has to say and get your reaction to them. [video clip] for those who resisted that idea that we should think about something like the stand your ground laws, i ask people to consider if trayvon martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? that hetually think

would have been justified in shooting mr. zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened? if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous it seems to me we want to examine those kinds of forms. a lot of the president's statement yesterday were about his own personal history in terms of profiling and what have you. i appreciate him speaking out on told -- on those types of things. he is simply wrong about the law. just because somebody follows you does not give you the right to shoot them. a reasonable person would have to believe that you are in of death orger serious bodily interest. -- or serious bodily injury. original operator asked zimmerman whether or not he knew where martin was. he says he got out of the car to

look at that point and when the operator realized he was gone the operator said you did not need to do that. he said ok. that is beside the point. the thing that was unusual about this case is he has physical injuries, a broken nose, lacerations, bruises on his face. you do not need that for being able to defend yourself in any case. convinceto be able to other people that you were in serious risk of death or serious injury. simply saying that somebody is following you does not give you the right to pull out your gun and go and shoot somebody. if that is the case you are going to get convicted of murder. surely a rocha knows -- a broken nose or damaged to themselves, you can say that gives some reasons to be fearful.

do anything now as far state laws are concerned? to be the senate is going taking up hearings, according to dick durbin, where he hopes to that -- to pass a federal law that will ban these types of iws in the states. guest: think what is important is that the president recognizes we are engaged in a national conversation. about race and gun laws. could george zimmerman shoot and kill an unarmed 17-year old walking home and get no punishment? if he had unbuckled his seat belt in his van he would have gotten more punishment killing this 17-year-old. it is more than the stand your ground laws, it is also concealed carry laws.

had an arrestan record, arrested for resisting .rrest was some violence he had a domestic violence restraining order by an x fiance. under yet under florida's concealed carry law, he was entitled to carry a handgun. under anyone's view, he showed a lack of judgment. there is no authority under florida law to revoke his license. weapon he used to kill trayvon martin issued back to him and he can continue to carry it. the: the ability of president to address stand your ground law -- any power over the

states? guest: it has always been a state issue, and practically it will be decided in the states and i hope the state of florida will revisit stand your ground them, but i repeal am not aware of federal legislation that has been introduced that would undo the state laws. host: charlotte, north carolina. steve, you are up first. caller: as someone that has been a victim of a nonviolent violence-- of a gun , i understand the need

for self defense, however george zimmerman, who i feel was hunting someone, had a can of red pepper spray or a stun gun and george zimmerman, who i feel was hunting someone, had a can of red pepper spray or a stun gun and immediately escalated to deadly violence. we would all be coming and story. i know he might be charged with something -- be telling a different story. and now he might be charged with something. some people carry weapons around who are looking for it. host: thank you, steve. mr. lowy. guest: you make a great point, steve, and this is a problem with concealed carry laws because they carry weapons in public places and they have no business to. that is what you saw with george zimmerman. even the fact that he immediately shot trayvon martin in the heart, even if he had pulled out his gun, there were so many things he could have done with it. he could brandished it.

he could have shot it in the air. went for they heart. we should revisit should people be entitled to carry loaded guns in public when they do not have the training, the judgment or the need to do some? host: mr. lott? guest: florida has had concealed carry laws since 1987, and over 2.5 million people have had concealed carry permits for over 10 years and you are simply ,rong, if they are arrested they will have their license suspended, and if convicted, permanently revoked. out of the millions of people in the state of florida that have had permits there have been four revocations for any type of firearms violation. than ones down to less

1000 of 10 -- of one percent. than policer rate officers are convicted of firearms violation. interesting,ray is but the case shows the limits of pepper spray. it was raining that night. if you read any directions or simple things on pepper spray, they will tell you that when it is raining, it will not be useful. there is limited use when there is wind. try and use peppers are in those conditions would be useful -- useless. we have data of people trying to defend themselves in terms of the national crime victimization survey that surveys over hundred 30,000 people a year -- over 130,000 people a year, and by thing people can

do when confronting a criminal is to use a gun. found to benefit in terms of lower crime rates. studies thatbout have not been published yet that looked at laws passed after 2005. a lot of states have had these laws for decades. host: the point is made about studies and data -- hominy deaths deaths have resulted from stand your ground laws. mr. lowy, did you want to contribute to that? guest: there have been at least two academic studies. guest: unpublished. guest: that have shown a 7% to nine percent increase in homicides and no deterrent to crime. when we are talking about tepper

spray or -- tepper spray or a gun, it seems very clear that it george zimmerman had not had a gun, he would not have gotten out of the car. unarmed, andwere had the suspicions, we would have remained in the car and we would not have gone out after him. guest: murders had taken place in this area. numerous robberies, other things. here was a citizen trying to help out, trying to protect the neighborhood that was there. why do we want people to hunker down inside of their homes all of the time? this is a horrible tragedy, but the question is and this was the wasge that the jury had, zimmerman in reasonable fear of

his life -- imminent danger, not something that would happen in our? incident there was an imminenthis life -- fear for his life or bodily injury. inwe say that we should stay our homes, and no one should care about fellow citizens in terms of trying to protect them, that is a sad state of affairs. here is a guy who had his neighbors harmed in very different ways from murder, to rape, to robbery in this relatively small community and he wanted to try to do something. he has done this. sometimes. he was not out -- lots of times. he was not out hunting. forensic experts, medical examiners on both sides, were

basically saying that martin was on top. host: we have to get a call in. guest: there were two questions -- one was a zimmerman guilty of a crime under the existing law now that it has the stand your ground law written by the nra. i am not talking about that question. the second question is is conduct thatonduct we want to encourage, and i would suggest given the fact, the 17-year-old unarmed man not doing any harm killed on his way home was a bad result. what we would prefer as a society is that george zimmerman call police if he has remain in his car if

he does not see a crime committed or likely to be committed, and that is what he would have been required to do before stand your ground. it is because of stand your ground that he was entitled to go after trayvon martin and have a self-defense claim. host: hold onto your thoughts. a collar, florida, george. republican line. caller: i know the legislator who wrote the bill and had it passed, and i have been on the team for the sheriff to be reelected. lowly, -- mr.-- lowy, the reason zimmerman could use stand your ground was because trayvon martin was ahead of him, turned around and came back. that is obvious. law written the

because white people among his constituents, wanted it, but black citizens, also, they are the ones that are put on more with crime than other people. when was no talk of race the law was presented to the legislator here in florida. the fact remains that both black voters and white voters wanted this to happen. host: mr. lowy, since he addressed you. guest: there was not a referendum on stand your ground by the people of florida. is that the issuect remains tht is you had a right to self defense before stand your ground. there is a misconception that you did not have the right to defend yourself. you certainly did. stand your ground eliminated the duty to avoid conflict if you

recently could. who would not be in favor of that? why do we have policy that encourages people to enter conflict where they might use lethal force and perhaps kill someone unnecessarily question mark the studies are out there showing -- unnecessarily question mark the studies -- isunnecessarily? there are studies out there showing this is a bad idea. host: mr. lott? bipartisan.s passed if this event had happened anyplace in the country the jury would have received the same instructions with regard to reasonable us -- reasonableness -- in terms of whether you face imminent danger or death. sure, this wasr

not a stand your ground case. nobody argued that. this was a reasonable defense argument. every state has a reasonable defense argument there and they have had it before we became a country. -- we look at these things look at the research that is there and people will look at more guns, less crime, a review of the published, peer-reviewed literature, and you find overwhelmingly people find a benefit from these types of laws. look at concealed carry. generally, the debate has been about two thirds of the academic literature finds that it reduces violent crimes. about one-third saying there is no effect, but there is no one that is publishing these

things arguing that there has been an increase in murder of any type that has been a result. guest: that is connected. you are arguing against concealed carry. host: chris on twitter says the problem with stand your ground laws is the burden of proof for self defense is so low that it is an inducement to murder. guest: you have to go and argue that a reasonable person believe they were in imminent danger of death or serious injury. that was the rule before florida past stand your ground, it is the role now. it is a rule in virginia. it is a rule in maryland. it is a rule across the country that is going to be there. the issue is whether you have this additional requirement. once the confrontation started,

could he have retreated? did he retreat as far as possible? no one, the prosecution, the defense, brought that up as an argument to consider. host: mr. lowy? guest: that is just an inaccurate description of the way the law is in stand your ground states or the way it was before stand your ground. i have the jury instruction they would have received before stand your ground that says a defendant can not justify the use of force unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force. that is completely contrary to the current law. under the stand your ground law, at least in home invasion cases, it creates a presumption that if you use force it was reasonable. so, it totally shifts the burden

tweeter suggested. finally, on the benefits of concealed carry, as the star lot as mr.john donahue -- lott knows, john donahue and many other academics have found that re/max -- relaxed concealed carry laws does not create a benefit, and in fact creates a negative affect on crime and studies have's rejected and any other academics that have looked at the data have been unable to replicate them. host: quick response. guest: you have to look at the studies more. there is no statistically significant effect is what john's study says. i have a list of academic studies -- more guns, less

edition,e third chapter 10, as citations that academicw each of the journals. it is on my website. people can look at the academic, peer-reviewed articles that are there, so it is simply incorrect. when you go and quote this, there are two parts -- one is was serious fear of

death or injury. since there is no possibility for him to retreat, the prosecution at the end of the case was saying that martin was on top -- the question is when did he use force? how far could he retreat? was serious fear ofttrayvon death or injury. since there is no possibility for him to retreat, the prosecution at the end of the case was saying that martin was on top -- the question is when did he use force? how far could he retreat? if you take that fact pattern and put it in any state in the country, you will get the same qualifications. the issue is what a reasonable person think they could retreat in that case, and nobody is arguing that. host: let me take a call. mesa, arizona. robert. independent line. caller: i am an independent because the democrats and the republicans just go along with what they think they have seen. portrayed as oodie at 12trayvon martin was ah years old. the stand your ground law is ridiculous in some cases heard if you are standing -- cases. if you arepeople can look at th, peer-reviewed articles that are there, so it is simply incorrect. when you go and quote this, there are two parts -- one is whether people retreat as far as possible. the second is the reasonable standard in terms of whether or not there standing, you pull your gun out and fired into the air or the ground, the person will leave you alone.

in this case, zimmerman did not have a chance. his back, and trayvon martin got on top of him with a ground and pound, and the only way he could defend himself was to shoot that young man, not , but aar-old in a hoddie man that was much bigger than him in a black hoodie. host: mr. lowy? at thewe have to look change in stand your ground, which said under the old law you had to use reasonable means to avoid a confrontation and the old law protected people. it entitled people to defend themselves if they needed to, but first you had to take reasonable action. zimmerman would have had to stay in his car. avoidld have had to trayvon martin if he thought he was worthy of a police call. he would not enter the fray. gune did not have a loaded

at his side, he would have stayed in the car, and the reason why he went after trayvon martin, regardless of what struggle, which we do not know, but even if mr. zimmerman's account is correct, it would not have to get that far. it would not have under the old law if he did not have a gun that the state of the entitled him to have. host: quick response, then a call. guest: we have to look at the arguments the prosecution and the defense made. zimmerman's account is correct, it would not have to get that far. it would not have undernobody br ground law is something for the jury -- as something for the jury to consider. we are talking about a national debate here. everyone wants to interpret this one case. we have had states that have had this stand your ground provision for their entire existence. we have over 30 states that have

these types of laws. if you want to take one story, i can give you lots of stories where prosecutors had to get into these issues -- did the person retreat as far as possible, what danger did that put people in? iat we need to do, even if were to say everything you are saying about this one case is right, a tragedy that could have been stopped by not having stand your ground, even if i agreed with that, the issue is what is the effect from these laws and concentrating on one story without dealing with why these laws got past -- there is a reason the states have these laws. there is a reason why courts, even before the state passed these laws, and these types of decisions. arbitrarily,just 50 or a hundred years ago, in the state of washington, or other places, go and make these

rules. there were real reasons in terms of producing bright lines that makes it easier for people to make decisions when they are defendant themselves. becausehey were passed the nra is a powerful force and has pushed for them. guest: they were there before the nra existed. guest: this is a common phenomenon with the former nra president pushing for this. do you explain it was before the nra existed? totally contrary to fundamental american law before the nra began this push. host: we are talking about stand your ground laws with jonathan lowy with the brady campaign, and also john lott, the author of "more guns, less crime --

understanding crime and gun control laws." brent, california. caller: i do not agree with the law for the fact that zimmerman did not have to approach martin. that means everyone can go and stand behind the law and shoot somebody. i do not agree. me and my wife lost our son six years ago last month. he was an innocent bystander. he got killed. he was only 20 years old. host: mr. lott? guest: i can generally say blacks in this country are most likely the victim of violent

crime, and if you look at who uses stand your ground the most and how successful they are, it is basically blacks and hispanics. it at twice the rate of the population, and 69% of the time that blacks go and use the stand your ground law in legal defense, they are successful. host: mr. lott? guest: i can generallyfor white. hispanics are even more successful, 78% of the time. my research, if it convinces me of anything, it is basically two groups of people that benefit the most. one of the groups are poor blacks that lived in high crime urban areas. i think police are the most important factor in reducing time, the police themselves now they've virtually always arrived after the crime has been committed. what do you tell these people? should they all grew in their homes? should they not go out at all?

should they board their windows and never leave their homes? that not just zimmerman could have a gun and use it for defense that allows them to walk the streets of his area. it is people in liberty city -- i grew up in miami, he put in other areas that have high crime rates. that is when you want to improve the quality of their life so that they are not locked up all the time. if you could guarantee police protection all the time, that would be great, but the thing is what you want them to do? nationwide, the average response time for police is 11 minutes. 11 minutes is a lifetime for one of these people, assuming he can even make the call. it is a lifetime for someone in these high crime, urban areas to have to wait for police to arrive. loa -- mr. lowy.

i am extremely sorry for the loss of your son. our gun laws make it far too easy to have not just people with arrest records like george zimmerman carry guns, but far too easy for convicted criminals to get guns and we need to step back and recall the conversations we were having in the wake of newtown, connecticut, as well. we do not have background checks for all gun sales. criminals can go to gun shows and go on the internet and get guns no questions asked. 47s, a r-eapons -- ak- 15 are available. they can be obtained without background checks, they can be carried and they can be utilized

in incidents like the trayvon martin tragedy. we do need to step back and look at this moment as a teaching moment and think, how can we save the lives of people like trayvon martin? host: what about mr. lott when he cites minorities in florida especially, and how they benefit from the? guest: it does not cut completely across racial lines. there are examples of some african-american, law-abiding people -- marissa alexander, i believe her name was, who was abused and shot a gun in the air and was sentenced to 20 years and the stand your ground defense did not work for her. on the other hand there has been drug dealers, some of them african-americans, some not,

that have gotten off the hook using stand your ground. it has been unequally applied. it is not just cut across racial lines. it just does not work. we have to look at how do we save the most lives estimates are we doing everything we can to keep dangerous people from getting -- lives. harley doing everything we we can to keep dangerous people guns, and do we have a criminal justice system that gives justice to people .hat are wrongfully injured one thing studies have shown on stand your ground is they have decreased the cost of using lethal violence. as an economist, i am sure you appreciate that, mr. lott, because the cost of using legal violence has been decreased

because it is easier to get off the hook. easy exercise more often and an increase in homicide. guest: the question is, it lowers the cost, but i am a law- toding citizen and i need defend myself, i might not defend myself because i'm worried about retreating as far as possible. guest: that was not a problem. you always had the duty to reasonably retreat. host: let him finish. assume thatan not just because there is a lower cost than all of those things are a bad affect. there are lots of cases. there is a list on my website people can look at and see cases , time after time, where there has been this ambiguity -- did the person retreat as far as possible? if i have in the back of my mind worrying about will i be

prosecuted if i got up a fourth time? as in the oklahoma case, what happens in the case? the alexander casey and -- case in jacksonville, i can only go by what people have said, and it sounds like she has been able to get she would should have been able to -- she should have been able to use it. she could repeal. her ex-husband was threatening her. she claims he was going to kill her, broke through the back room -- bathroom door she was in, followed her, was approaching her, making threats, and she fired a warning shot in the air. factuallythose are true, i would hope she will be able to defend herself in that case. i would not want to change laws

that would make it more difficult. she should have, when she fired the warning shot, the reason she is using the stand your ground law is because she did not retreat further at that point. doing he her to worry about that -- do we need her to worry about that? it is why she should, if the facts are true, be able to defend himself and not get rid of everyone's right to do that. guest: everyone had the right to defend themselves. the only difference with stand your ground is it enabled people to enter the flight, and not avoiding conflict, but to facilitate violence and illegal conduct. host: some of the questions off of twitter -- couldn't martin and ashley have been standing have beenldn't martin

standing his ground initially. the second, mr. lott, didn't trayvon martin have the right to defend himself wasn't he standing his ground question him --mmerman stopped his ground? zimmerman stopped him. guest: trayvon martin was unarmed. he had a bag of skittles and ice-t. that is one of the problems when you relax stand your ground laws. you allow people like george zimmerman, who had a criminal history, you allow people like publiccarry handguns in places because he is more likely to get out of his car and follow someone in the dark, and even if trayvon martin tried to defend himself, he would have been shot dead in any event.

lott.-- host: mr. guest: you keep ringing up zimmerman -- bringing up zimmerman's arrest record, and you know the facts, he was trying to help someone, and the case was dropped. trayvon martin was armed with his fist. case, in anyone's case, you cannot shoot someone because they are following you. a reasonable person has to believe you are in imminent danger. walk on theody sidewalk behind you, even if that is the case, and there is no evidence offered by the prosecution or rebutted, that indicated at the time the confrontation occurred that zimmerman was following him, even if he had been, you cannot

shoot someone unless you are actually being threatened. i wanted to make one point about the alexander case. i was taking the case as you gave it. why did she use stand your ground? she used it because she was not retreating further at that point. either you bring this up as a case where you believe the facts case -- question is if you believe the facts, do you believe that she should have defended herself, and if you believe the facts, without retreating further at that point, then you believe she should have been sentenced to 20 years. host: let me take a call. florida. republican line. john. caller: it is a shame that death, but i their think the jury got it 100% right.

the law in florida is not going to change. host: let's get another call from gilbert, arizona. independent line. caller: i think it is about time we got to the heart of the matter which is that legislation such as the stand your ground law is being written by businesses in bed with our legislators, and furthermore, i johnrprised that you have lott on the show, who is essentially a shill [indiscernible] we left it off, mr. lowy, pick it up, and mr. lott, we will go back to you. guest: the lawler -- the caller ,akes a good point, that alec

which is a corporate alliance to post this -- pushed this legislation along with the nra. what happened after the trayvon martin killing shows that there is a disconnect between legislators that have pushed these laws and the general public because what happened after trayvon martin and what happened initially, of course, was george zimmerman was not even charged with a crime, and police said the reason was stand your ground. it came into the case at that early stage. what happened was people were so outraged that george zimmerman was not going to be charged and they found out that corporate sponsors pushed the legislation and they put pressure on the company's and the companies faced the bottom line that americans were unhappy and the andanies backed out of alec demanded that they do not deal with gun issues were carry the

nra policy agenda anymore. it was really an amazing moment where you saw people saying we are not going to buy a certain product if you are pushing this outrageous law that protects , sole like george zimmerman we have not had a referendum, but that was a referendum of sorts. host: mr. lott? guest: again, this was passed overwhelmingly bipartisan. virtually every member of the state house voted for this in florida. if you want to argue everybody is a shill -- you have to give both democrats and republicans that voted for this more credit. people solve the problems, the ambiguity in the law at that point. why did the democrats vote for

it? are you saying democrats are all shills for gunmakers? is that what you are saying? a law that would revoke iftors and medical licenses they talk about the risk of guns, i assume some democrats also voted for that law. it was unconstitutional. that is just an example of the sort of strings. overwhelmingsed by the geordie's in pennsylvania. will you makes -- majorities in pennsylvania. similar arguments? guest: pennsylvania has a different law than florida. guest: it seems almost word for word the same.

there are over 30 states that have these laws, and you'll tell tell me that even though they have been passed at large, bipartisan majorities in all of the states it is going to be that these guys are just shills -- all of these democrats are shills? is a hugere disconnect between the american public and federal and state legislators on gun issues. we have seen that 90% of the american people support universal background checks. if you buy a gun, see if you are a convicted felon or domestic abuser. states, that is not the law. under federal law, that is not the law. it does not show that representatives are getting it right. it shows that representatives are not listening to the voice of the american people. it shows they are listening to extremists and the gun lobby. south carolina.

ronnie. jake -- caller: you are conflating two issues. it waszimmerman case, clearly a self-defense issue and not the stand your ground law. secondly, if you're going to use a hypothetical, what if martin had a gun and shot zimmerman, i would submit what if zimmerman would have been allowed to go back to his car, and martin would have gone home like he should have, maybe we would not have had this problem. thirdly, if you are going to call one person the show, the other is as much a shill. it is part of the brady center, he is using this to push them control laws. there are background check laws in almost all the states. they're just not being used. host: mr. lott?

guest: i do not like calling people shills to begin with. i assume you are well motivated on this. i assume you are well-motivated. guest: i did not call you a shill. it was a caller, just to be clear. guest: well you are talking about people being bought off by business interests. guest: i said they are not representing the american people and -- american people. guest: you said they were influenced by these business interests and it sounded like there was a quid pro quo. you bring up the background checks. it seems like an obvious law to have him. -- have. in principle, we ought to have in all states, not just most,

but what the caller was saying. here is the thing, almost everyone that is stopped as a result of the background check is a false positive. when the president says there are 2 million prohibited people that have been stopped, the right terminology is 2 million initial denials. just like you might remember the late senator ted kennedy, five times he was on the no-fly list. he later flew. i assume we would not count that as five times stopping a terrorist from flying. that is the way they count them in these initial denials. in kennedy's case, the he had a name similar to someone we wanted to stop. when private companies do background checks on people, if they had even one 20th of the false positives the federal government as, they would be sued out of existence, and the reason is they include things

like social security number, address, other identifying information that makes it so you do not have these people with similar names flagging you. i do disagree with the caller, even though she was sympathetic to me on this point, it is not that obama does not want to enforce the law. a lot of people have said we have 15,000 felons that have been stopped from buying guns because of background checks in 2010 and obama is not enforcing the law. that is simply false. obama is not doing anything wrong. the reason he is not going after these guys is just because somebody has a name similar to a felon it does not mean they are actually a felon. guest: the story about ted kennedy, i believe is true, but the rest of it is not. it is completely untrue that most of the 2 million people that have been stopped by buying guns by the brady law were false positives.

that is made up. that is fiction. we should stick to the facts. what the caller said about the fact that most states have background laws, that is incorrect. the federal law, and the law in almost all states requires background checks if you buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer. however, if you buy a gun from a private seller at a gun show, over the internet, at a flea market, you do not need to undergo a background check to buy a gun. absolutely no questions asked. people,he american including an overwhelming majority of gun owners and nra members support universal background checks. yet the fact that ellen congress and -- the fact that our congress and state legislators have not listened to the american people shows a great

disconnect. you can draw your own conclusions as to their motivation, but you do have to recognize there is a gun industry in this country, almost a billion dollar gun industry, and they are a business in the business of selling as many guns as possible. it is within their interest. host: new york. democrats line. dee. morning.es, good i have to get my thoughts together. i have a question for both of these gentlemen. i would like to hear what each one has to say about this. i will go back to stand your ground and trayvon martin. it came into evidence that when george zimmerman approached trayvon martin what he was doing pushes him in his pocket to pull something out. i submit to you that trayvon

martin believed that he was pulling out a gun, and i believe he had every right to punch him. this,r, just to continue and i want you to mention something about somebody saying george zimmerman was following trayvon martin. i believe george zimmerman went hen between trees lane, as testified, but trayvon martin went around a few houses. the kid was trying to run away and i think he was only by happenstance that they both met. respond. you both mr. lott? guest: i watched the trial. i do not recognize the types of questions she is talking about coming from the trial that zimmerman initiated the conversation. there is no evidence the prosecution brought up with

regards to those types of statements. what seemed to be clear is there was some point where zimmerman was following martin. he was asked by the operator where martin was. he got out of his car, looked, the operator said are you following him, and he said yes. the operator said he did not need to do so and zimmerman said ok. there is no evidence the on that point -- passed that point. even if he was -- the caller wants to hypothesize about something that is not on the record that occurred there, but simply following someone, simply thinking someone pulls -- puts their hand in their pocket, even if that is true, will not pass the earth -- reasonable person test. you have to believe a reasonable person would believe you are in in imminent danger, and there is nothing there to implicate that

was the case. first of all, if he initiated the fight -- and zimmerman started the fight, -- if zimmerman started the fight, he could not pass a reasonable person test. you have to asked if they would consideron there was the threat of death or injury. host: mr. lowy? ever know exactly what happened that night, but there are some things that are undisputed. george zimmerman could have called the police, stayed in his car, and if he had done that, nothing bad would have happened. he would not have engaged in violent crime, and trayvon martin would have gone home and watched the second half of the nba all-star game. the police would have come, and zimmerman would have gone about

his business. that is a good outcome. how do we encourage outcomes like that? one thing we should do is make it harder for dangerous people like zimmerman to carry guns in public laces, as he did hit -- public places, as he did here, which emboldened him to follow we alsond kill martin. have the stand your ground law, which, we discussed, is limited to the duty which -- which eliminates the duty to avoid conflict. if we pull back that law it encourages evil that zimmerman to stay in the car, a good outcome that we should look for. keith. florida. caller: i believe it is funny to see a special interest cut

somebody down for being in a special interest. i do not think this guy has been in a fight. if you are getting it up, it is a split second decision. you will use self-defense. if trayvon martin was shot for putting his hands in his pocket, he would be guilty and in jail right now. i have questions for each gentlemen. guns,ntleman with the would it have helped if it was open carry, or if the neighborhood watch people have notified him that he was neighborhood watch? i do not know if that should be law, but maybe they should identify themselves. -- german,er general why is it that states that have the highest -- most restrictive gun laws have the highest murder

rates? host: mr. lott question mark -- mr. lott? to comment on the second one first, every place in the world that has banned guns, we see an increase in murder rates. it is not just washington, d.c., and chicago, which a lot of americans aren't familiar with, whether it is -- are familiar with, but whether it is britain see whoca, you have to obeys the laws, and when you disarm them relative to easier.s, you make it on the issue of open and concealed carry, here is the deal. i think there is generally much larger benefits from having concealed carry because a criminal does not know until

they attack someone if the person will be able to defend themselves. gun people who do not own a benefit because it creates a in the mind of a criminal. somebody that wears an open carry gun, they might personally benefit, but if we had that provision, the criminal would know somebody else -- here is one way to think about it. would you put a sign in front of your home that says your home is a gun-free zone? presumably, nobody would do that because you are telling the terminal it is easier to -- criminal to attack you. carry,nly allowed open it would be the same thing as those people that were not openly carrying, we would know they would be easy targets. host: mr. lowy? guest: first of all, we are not talking about banning guns. nobody is here there is a second

amendment right to have a gun in here.w -- nobody is there is a second amendment right to have a gun. the issue is what kind of gun law should we have, and the evidence is that the states with the most reasonable gun laws have the lowest gun mortality rates. strong,ia has very common sense gun laws -- and a versatile background checks, an weapon ban, and they are a great success story. between 1990 and 2010, i have reduced firearm mortality by 52% -- they have reduced firearm mortality by 52%. if you look at the states that have the highest gun death rates, they are states with very weak gun laws -- mississippi, arizona, alaska, arkansas, louisiana.

i could go further. the fact is gun laws work. he could be more effective if theyad federal laws -- could be more effective if you had federal laws because you could have a jurisdiction like washington, d c, and you can get guns from virginia, south carolina, florida and easily ring them across the border -- bring them across the border. you need a strong federal law but you can and should have second amendment rights, which nobody is contesting, yet have keepnable restrictions to dangerous people from obtaining guns and have them on the street. rouge,eroy, baton louisiana, democrat line. caller: the stand your ground law does not make any sense. neighborhood,a

but if i've -- it is not the greatest neighborhood, but if iran out of my house every time somebody was walking down the street, there would be a lot of killing going on in the nation. host: keep going, please. man with theet the red tie's name, but he keeps talking about obama. it is president obama. it is disrespectful. bo.: caller: i would like to say the same thing. i do not know how i stand your ground law applies on a public street. marissa alexander fire shots into the air and she is facing 20 years.

from a republican standpoint, she was in her home. the other aspect is how does the public street apply to stand your ground. host: why don't we consider the first part about the public street. guest: sure. the issue is do you have to retreat as far as possible customer somebody -- possible question mark somebody comes up to you -- possible? somebody comes up to you, and can a reasonable person defend themselves? we have this ambiguity, this vagueness, what does it mean to retreat as far as possible? that concern, that the myth, it up -- limit, it applies whether you are in your house, your car or on the sidewalk outside of your house. that, heller before

lives in a high crime area. i can understand that. the problem is it is in those areas where people are attacked outside of their homes. the need the protection to protect themselves. if you want people to go and retreat as far as possible, you have to recognize there are costs and that is why you have common rules. thet: the caller gets at unre of the problem withnd throughout history we had what was called the castle doctrine, the law around the premise that your home was your castle, you have the right to protect it, and if somebody came in without your permission you had the right to defend yourself, your family, your property and your home. ist stand your ground does export that doctrine into the public street. it enables someone like george zimmerman to walk public streets, follow trayvon martin, and wherever he is, that is his

castle. that is not his castle. it is public property and trayvon martin had as much right to walk on those sidewalks as george zimmerman did. in those situations, you should avoid conflict, live and let .ive if you reasonably can if you are in a situation where you cannot avoid conflict reasonably, you have the right to defend yourself. that was the law for centuries until the nra and their corporate friends at alec got into the act and rewrote the state laws. host: here is a map on states that have expanded the castle doctrine. richard, laurel maryland, independent line -- laurel, maryland. independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to point out something for mr. lott.

you are well-versed in fact it you have written -- and you have written a book, but there is one niche in your life -- you need a little empathy. realize, a young class,gardless of his his color, was killed, absolutely murdered forever, never to speak again. he was not available at the trial. we do not know his side of the story. laws are made every day. they are broken every day. they are also cap everyday -- kept every day. the people that write the laws, the leaders of our country, are basically operating on the premise -- and as long as they operate on the premise of i have not broken the law unless i get caught -- as long as leaders show this type of attitude we

will never resolve any of the issues we are confronted with today. host: mr. lott? guest: as i said before, it is a horrible tragedy could i have -- tragedy. i have five kids. i cannot imagine losing any of my kids for any reason. we have to step back. we cannot talk about laws with one case. we have a huge violence problem in the country. 70% of the murders occur within counties.f the even within the counties they are in concentrated areas. my concern is what can we do to people?ave those important, but what

do you advise people in those high crime areas, where they are at risk -- minority communities. the thing that unites us all -- we might disagree, but what works in terms of saving lives. not whether someone gets paid off by gunmakers or something like that, in order to go and test different types of laws that are out there. important, but what do you advise people in those high crime areas, where they are that is the concern that motivates me -- what will save the most lives here? you know, i do not know what else to tell him. i mean, maybe because we have been going through this case so , we have hadever these laws. we have had the law, as it would be applied in the florida case, beeneasonable standard has there forever, and we have this debate about the stand your law that have nothing to

do with it. guest: the jury instructions that the jury received in the zimmerman case were completely different because of stand your ground. the jury was entrusted that he had a right to stand his ground. that is the concern that motivatesbefore stand your groue jury would have instructed that the zimmerman had an obligation to avoid guest: there is another aspect to the stand your ground law. somebody asserts the stand your ground defense and defeats a civil liability action, the court shall award zimmerman reasonable attorneys fees, all expenses, and lost income compensation. there's no provision in law like that for other defendants.

it puts people who have used lethal force, in this case killing an innocent, unarmed man in a place where they actually make a profit. they would get their lost income. that's not profit. that's just compensating. no provision for anyone else that you get lost wages because you were able to defeat a civil action. -- unjustifiably killing someone. it makes a favored class out of people who use lethal force. guest: before you said that zimmerman has not gotten any penalties.

in life has been changed many different ways. he has been in hiding, his family has been in hiding. he has not been able to hold a job for over a year and a half. he's been receiving tons of death threats, as has his family. if we want to talk about empathy and sympathy, to say, well the guy gets his attorneys fees -- a week or two weeks if it is a civil case. what's the harm? being made to compensate him for the time of having to go through that trial. is that really outrageous in your mind that that would be the compensation? are you saying he should not get his legal fees paid? law, there aree

not provisions like this for other successful defendants. people who use deadly bute in a favored class nobody else in society has. that is outrageous and it is part of the gun lobby playbook. they have immunity laws passed in congress and many states which exempt negligent done dealers, who sell to gun traffickers and criminals from civil action that no other industry or actor in society has. there are many examples. thee are exemptions from freedom of information act, the consumer product safety act. exemptions toal protect one of the more dangerous, if not the most dangerous industry in america. anthony is calling for

virginia beach, democrat. guest: i have a question -- caller: mr. zimmerman was neighborhood watch, approaching mr. martin. did he identify himself as neighborhood watch? if a police officer pulls you over, you know he's the police officer if he's in his vehicle with the lights on. the first thing they're going to is identify themselves. badge, whatever. mr. zimmerman did not identify himself as anything. so trayvon is running. he does not know what this guy's plan is. going back to the part where mr. zimmerman had an issue with law enforcement and he was charged, he took a program to get a lesser charge. you was telling the other feller

that you know what happened to that. charged with aggravated assault on a police officer but he took a program to get a lesser charge. what's the first question he asked? do you want to entrust the last part? -- address the last part? guest: i remember now. the way the story seemed to go in this case, zimmerman said the martin popped out of the bushes on the side, said what are you doing? and punched him in the nose. did not seem like he had a lot of time to talk to him at that point. if that's the case, i'm not sure what the caller would be asking him to go and do in that situation.

if a police officer was attacked from behind or somebody attacked a police officer, if it was a detective, i assume he would not have time to identify himself in this situation. to the second part, what happened was the charges because the police officer had overstepped his bounds. zimmerman was trying to help out someone who was hurt. the police officer restrained him temporarily from doing that. he was not charged with the crime. maybe he was an eyewitness to what happened. i was not. the incident between zimmerman

and the officer in 2005, he was charged with resisting an officer with violence and he also had a domestic violence restraining order issued against him. the caller said the charge was submit tod he had to an alcohol diversion program. but i gets back to this issue of -- that getsry back to this issue of concealed carry. law enforcement had no ability to stop zimmerman from having a concealed weapon. it did not matter what the facts were that they knew. we know that the lack of judgment that mr. there is noercised,

authority in florida to revoke his concealed carry license. when you are arrested or charged, your license is revoked. guest: there is no authority in florida to review his record. now there's a second question, should he be able to carry a loaded, hidden gun in public? guest: in florida, january 2008 through june of this year, four people have had their concealed handgun permits revoked for any type of firearms violation. with over a million people having concealed handgun permits , you have a revocation yearly rate of less than 110,000th of

1%.ne ten thousandth of countryeople across the push for legislation to prevent the public from even finding out information about concealed carry in florida. florida,ey can google concealed carry statistics. the database for florida. it has updates monthly. the number of people who have permits, how long they have had them. and you know whether the licenses have been suspended or revoked. a number of states have that type of data. texas has it on their website, very detailed information. going forward, and now we've talked about this law,

what do you think about the future of steadier ground laws in united states -- stand your ground laws in the united states? i think it is a wake-up call and you will see legislators revisiting the issue of stand your ground. hopefully you will find movement to put police officers in a position where they can have a say in whether someone is too dangerous to be carrying a loaded gun in public places, or someone's license for concealed carry should be revoked if there is a record of lack of judgment which leads to loss of life. and certainly whether stand your ground should be amended or repealed. hopefully we will have a broader discussion about the gun control laws. i hope we will make it more possible for people to go and

defend themselves, get rid of things such as gun free zones, which advertise places for criminals to go and attack people. we have over 9.3 million americans that have concealed handgun permits in the united states. it has bloomed dramatically under the obama administration. these people are incredibly law- abiding. goave a chapter where i three -- through state-by-state. why you don'ton put out the names of concealed carry permit holders. that is because you identify people who can't defend themselves. yorkame thing when a new newspaper went and publish the addresses from the homes that had guns.

it is essentially putting up signs on all those other people's homes that say, these .eople can't defend themselves we've had research that shows that when newspapers publish that type of information, you see more burglaries, more crime in the homes identified as not having guns to protect them. we're out of time. gentlemen, thank you. coming up, we're going to take a look at samantha powers, the obama administration nominee for u.s. ambassador to united nations and the challenges she may face if confirmed by the senate. withwill be our question -- segments with josh rogin.

during the half-hour interview that representative henry waxman had with reporters, he was asked pipeline.keystone xl they say it is true it will cause more greenhouse gases, it will happen anyway. it's not going to happen anyway. have argued, they can use railroads instead, when we just had an explosion of a railroad in canada. that's not a feasible way to transport that oil. said they can send a pipeline through canada. people will not accept that pipeline. the only way is if we buy into the idea that they can ship their oil through the united intes, have it refined louisiana and the gulf and maybe we'll stay here, maybe it will it will stay here, maybe

it will stay in canada. the president said he won't approve it if it adds to greater admissions. a're trying to see if that is phrase of art that he has accepted, used, and is trying to find a way out of what should be the obvious conclusion, reject that pipeline. quote --commended, which crimes were you referring to and which decisions taken by the current administration would you recommend? thank you for giving me occasion to respond to that. to this country, i think this country is the greatest country on earth, as i know do you. i would never apologize for

america. america is the light to the world. we have freedoms and opportunities here that people dream about a broad. i certainly did. with regard to that quote, one of the things that had moved me, as some had mentioned, i had written -- center isaac son had written critically about the clinton's remarks about the rewind and genocide -- rwandan genocide. clinton had come forward and expressed his regret that the united states did not do more in the face of the genocide. when i traveled to rwanda, i was stunned to see the degree to which clinton's visit to rwanda, his apology for not having done more, how would had resonated with -- it had resonated with rwandans. on c-span twos "booktv," live

coverage of the harlem book fair. at 11:45.oday host: joining us now is josh rogin. he is with "newsweek daily beast." there was a hearing on capitol hill that dealt with a woman named samantha power. who is she? guest: president barack obama's nominee to become the next permanent representative to the united nations, succeeding susan rice, who just became the national security advisor. power was a senior white house

official dealing with human rights. she was a fellow in the senate office of senator barack obama. she was a harvard law professor before that, and before that, a journalist covering the war in yugoslavia. she wrote a book about it which won a tulip surprise. . she is an author, activist -- pulitzer prize. she is an author, activist. is known as the classic liberal interventionist. policylieves that foreign- should be conducted through the use of international organizations. she promotes international law and customs, consensus. believesme time she the international community has a responsibility to protect people in need. about humanten

rights violations extensively. she believes where people are suffering in the world, especially through the actions of governments against mass populations and especially when those populations are targeted because of ethnicity or religion , it is the responsibility of powerful countries in the international community to intervene and stop those atrocities. the reception of her interesting as the nominee. she was introduced by two republicans at the hearing this week. through thisgoing confirmation process in the senate. it can go one of two ways. the confirmation process can be an opportunity for members of the opposition party to try to veto a nomination by tripping up the nominee, by bringing up things from the past that will make them ineligible to serve in the future. by thedecision

opposition party is not to challenge the nominee, these hearings become a lovefest. republicans agreed they were not going to put up obstacles. it became forcing, compelling her to make statements that she takesbe held to when she office. that thether was senators praised her as much as possible. host: does she have her critics? critics lot of the focus on her writings when she was a journalist. most senior level cabinet nominees do not have years and years they have published. critics, especially those on the far right, have attacked some of

her statements in her writings, some of which seem to be advocating the position of the u.s., more towards the away fromn side and the israeli side than the administration is today. and some have criticized america. to havee, america needs a historical reckoning with war crimes that we have committed, sponsored, or permitted. this is a good example of where frankha power was very about the way she viewed some of america's historical actions. that kind of language is not acceptable in today's hyper partisan, hypersensitive, politically correct environment. at this hearing she was called on to retract those comments, and she surely did. that does not mean she did not believe them now and does not believe them now. but where you sit is where you stand.

she reemphasized that she loves america, america is the greatest whatevern earth, and we do she wanted to defend staunchly. host: she made a statement about comingthe word disgrace up. can you give context to the viewers at home? book about genocide was based on the clinton administration's failure to intervene in places such as wanda. -- rwanda. there are a lot of parallels with the international community's reluctance to intervene in rwanda and syria today. the obama administration makes a lot of excuses to not intervene. beentha power has always one inside the administration pushing for more action. in was forward leading

pushing for obama's intervention in libya, which he did. she has been pushing for greater action on syria. said thataring, she president bashar al-assad was , thetting gross atrocities united nations security council would be shamed historically by their inaction on syria. she defended the obama administration's policy at the same time and asserted that the administration has been very active in syria. she's the head of obama's atrocities prevention board, an internal mechanism to figure out what we can do to prevent atrocities and document them in preparation for war crimes trials later on. thewas very honest about way she feels about what is happening in syria but she did viewslunteer that her inside the are not winning the day. host: we are talking about

samantha power, the nominee to become u.s. ambassador. you can call up using the numbers on your screen. this is from the senate foreign relations committee hearing that took place on wednesday. she talked about her policy when it comes to intervention overseas. >> i believe america should not and cannot shelter every crisis and refugee. our resources are strained by pressing needs at home and we are not the worlds policeman. we must make choices based on on the best interests of the american people.

other countries must share the costs and burdens of addressing global problems. there are challenges across borders that the united states alone cannot meet. there are cases, such as sanctions against iran and north korea, when u.s. actions pack far more punch when they are joined by others. a call fromtake illinois, line for democrats. what are journalists and of whenployers afraid it comes to organized explosives and 911 -- 9/11? guest: you are publishing a well-known theory about what happened on 9/11 that has been written about and well criticized. my personal opinion is that this

discussed,been well and a lot of the conspiracy theories have been disproven. some of them will never be disproven or proven and it is one of those mysteries of history. on our line for independents, hello. a firm believer in what the ambassador is believing in. i believe united states should role iny a formidable helping other countries gain their independence and everything. i agree completely with the fact backed byould be others and not just doing a lot on our own and that is opening that that will bring some of the republicans on board. guest: thanks for your comment. samantha power is trying to strike a balance between her advocacy for intervention and

the obama administration's position on relying on international organizations. part of the broad foreign policy doctrine includes a burden sharing, taking america out of the role in a lot of these issues and promoting regional actors. the problem with the implementation of that policy is a lot of these international institutions are horrendously dysfunctional. it is a great idea that, we should lead consensus around the world with international legitimacy to take assertive action, but it does not actually happen were the rubber meets the road because of the intransigence and dysfunction of many of these organizations. i think it would be great if that could happen, but one of the things that samantha power will have to deal with is when she is confirmed, is can the u.n. the reformed, and can consensus be billed on any of the stuff issues? -- built on

any of these tough issues? host: a caller from new york on our democrats lined. -- line. caller: do you really want to 10 years agoee who published words to the effect that the u.s. was involved in a lot of atrocities and war crimes? all of a sudden she seems to backpedal and think the u.s. is the quote unquote light of the world. what are your thoughts on that? guest: i would go back to what processes have become. bey are designed to pander, stage where senators and nominees alike can sort of pay lip service to a lot of interest groups. i'm not a really big fan of this

line that she is a flip flopper. she has to do that if she wants to get confirmed. she is a smart lady and nobody in the know really believes that she all of a sudden changed her positions. if you want to get confirmed in this environment, you say what the administration policy is so they can go back to their interest groups and constituents and donors and say, our new un ambassador rice supports -- really supports whatever. don't get hung up on the fact that what she said 10 years ago does not match what she says now. she is doing the right thing. there is no upside for her in challenging the senators and all of these issues. there's no real real discussion or debate going on in these hearings. they are for mass consumption. as for her actual believes that

america has committed atrocities, she believes that and that does concern some people. looke same time, if you around the obama administration, potential nominees for this position, most conservatives i have talked to have said that because she is so forthright and aggressive on things such as of they prevention, out pool of possible u.n. candidates that could come from president obama, she is one of the ones that they prefer. if you're in the opposition, you will never get the nominee you love. but they have got in samantha power a nominee they can work with. everyone is getting on toward here. host: -- on board here. host: a twitter comment -- in her u.n. role, she will have the main job of being a spokesman for american interests and values. she will not be dependent on

driving through a lot of huge initiatives. -- sheses that will work will work within these countries, she has a track record in working with these countries from her time in the white house. -- u.n. security counsel russia, china will thwart u.s. action on certain issues. looking at her to change the character of the u.n. or convince russia and china to change their strategic calculus to be in line with united states, she probably cannot do that but nobody could. host: for those at the council and the u.n. in general, would they look at her as formidable? guest: yes. she is very well respected and has a high profile. she is known to be a good person

to work with and a good manager. she has a direct line to president obama. foreign countries will place their level of respect for u.s. officials on whether or not they think that official has precedents here. host: dover, ohio on the independent line. caller: i'm amazed at how many people are complaining about the fact that she has claimed the united states has committed atrocities. i don't know if your guest is aware of the program called mk ultra, where the u.s. government ,onducted biological, chemical and drug programs on unsuspecting united states citizens, mentally ill prisoners , people like that. are you familiar with the fact that we have overthrown the

government of iran twice, iraq, dominican republic, haiti, cuba, guatemala, nicaragua --the list goes on and on. fact that we have done that is a disservice to the united states. we are not this big christian going around helping all the poor. we do on some cases, but on most cases, we don't. there was tuskegee -- host: you listed a lot of things. fact: it is an objective that elements of united states government in various parts of history have committed war crimes and atrocities. almost every power has. feel a need to try to argue that that is a debatable point. at the same time, samantha power is talking about atrocities we , the had or sponsored

nothing to do with united states. and going a step further and saying america has a responsibility to do something about atrocities that we were not the cause of. that is what she believes. it's not the administration's policy. if you want to be an official, you have to trumpet the administration's policy. and you speak publicly represent the president, you have to represent the president position accurately and that is what she is doing. what you're talking about acknowledging this, this is what samantha power called in her writings the mea culpa doctrine. she's said american governments would be better served to admit arocities committed as cleansing, catharsis, and that would give us a future of more credibility. that is debatable. is going towhat she be doing as un ambassador rice.

that is not her job now. when you are a journalist, your job is to criticize. when you are an official, your job is to find practical and implementable solutions. it's more fun and easier to criticize. but now she has a tougher job, make policy and implement policy. that is not a politically viable policy either here or abroad. or use it is where you stand. we can see that -- where you sit is where you stand. we can see that as an evolution of policy or her making a concerted decision that she can be most effective from the inside. to get on the inside, she has to say the right things. she is a very shrewd politician and she is playing the game very well. host: a caller on our republican line. caller: you said something interesting about your job as a journalist. i was for a decade. your job is to journal and report, not criticize.

i spent time in england and ireland. i'm quite shocked at the lack of questioning addressing samantha power's upbringing. of ireland were whitewashed by the plo, i was there in 2003 photographing them in getting those images out across the pond. addition, one of the best lessons in europe came from the garda. addressilosophy was, the culture there and the nature of woman. if you enter a room where there are men and a woman, you take the woman out first because she is fierce. photographs that changed legislation in northern ireland. the first ever bloody

sunday march in northern ireland and the presence of plo flags. i know the environment that ms. powers grew up in. i did not hear questions asking her about the impact of that on her use. i was being a little glib when i was talking about journalists criticizing. there is a difference between activist journalism like samantha power was, who had a clear intellectual identity and was transparent about that in her writing, and straight news reporters like me who i feel should take a critical approach to analyzing the government and its actions and statements but do not have an actual view. on the situation in northern inland, ms. powers was born ireland and lived in the area near dublin. her family left when she was nine. i'm not sure that is necessarily

relevant to her confirmation tos year, but if one wanted ask her, i'm sure she would have well-informed views on the atrocities that happened and i commend journalists who took risks to report that story. caller on our democratic line from texas. caller: i was calling to let you guys know that i do concur with the nomination for mrs. powers. i am a 52-year-old woman and i have been watching the world in so many different aspects, even going back and updating my information on vietnam, etc. i consider our country to be the big brother, to be proud and stand. we are there to reach out and help the ones, the third world nations who can't help themselves. that is what we are there for. she is not going to concur with everything that mr. obama says

and does, but she's there to follow his lead. i embrace her and i embrace president obama as well. did it come to your attention, ms. powers? caller: i worked with the federal government as a child growing up with a stay in school program and i advanced myself to the federal government, and i have always watched the ambassadors. the word ambassador to means -- me, means to support the ones who can't help themselves. like with the marines, we never leave anyone behind. watching the world in so many different aspects, we are big brother and we need to confirm that that is what we are there to do, we are there to help the little countries that cannot help themselves. guest: a couple of things.

this idea of the responsibility is a relatively controversy all -- controversial concept. it means different things to different people. what is the responsibility? does it mean aid, political pressure. the obama administration has struggled with this. let's are member that after the libya war in 2011 -- remember that after the libya war in 2011 , that was waged based on the fact that gadhafi was massacring the fact that we have a fiscal crisis at home, people the domestic

political situation am aware even republicans -- where even by alicans are dominated part of a party that advocates aggressiveness. even the definition is unclear. i would say that the role of america as a protector and big brother has diminished under this president as part of his doctrine of having a lighter u.s. presence around the world and sharing the burden of world of finance -- governance. host: a caller on our republican line. caller: i was calling the independent line. i'm libertarian. i'm not too hot on the duty to

protect issue, but what i can't is how the islamic conference is very influential at the u.n. and you have hamas. why somebody who purports to be starts with the most un-liberal. i've never understood that from the perspective of the supposedly burls. -- liberals. i want your thoughts on that, as it relates to the issues from her past. this is the issue most often written about concerning samantha power's u.n. nomination, her history of making statements and being active on the issue of the israel-palestine peace process. she was criticized early on for saying things that the u.s. should shift its investment

towards a palestinian state, she was criticized for some comments seem to be dismissive of the pro-israel lobby in washington. in the last four years she has made extensive efforts to correct or amend the narrative that she is not as pro-israel as people would like her to be. met with the jewish community. when she was working at the white house, according to officials, she was a fierce advocate of doing things at the u.n. to protect and defend delegitimization. and to thwart the palestinian authority from seeking recognition in international bodies, especially human bodies.

the u.n. is by large an organization that criticizes israel far more than any other country. the u.s. position has always been to defend israel from those criticisms and veto any .esolutions samantha was beyond clear at her hearing. she said that she would get israel a seat at the un security council. she said all the right things and then some as far as the pro- israel lobby is concerned. by engagings that international organizations that are anti-israel, you can have an influence on their activities and reduce the level of anti- israel activities of these organizations. that is highly debatable. i think she has had some success and some failure in that in her four years of making those kinds of decisions at the white house.

an announcement today from secretary of state kerry, filed a tentative agreement for israeli- palestinian talks. guest: we need to wait and see exactly what it is the kerry announced. one of the hallmarks of his diplomacy in the middle east is that the details are completely unclear. we don't know what the agreement is. it seems as if he has created a framework for restarting of formal negotiations between israelis and palestinians, which since 2010. first this will be implanted first by the top negotiators for both sides to washington. the dates of those visits are unclear. how they would solve key issues is completely unclear. we need to wait and see. host: this is mark, on our line

for democrats. caller: i first heard about samantha power when i heard rubio's questions and comments and stuff like that. i was doing a little research. i have a question for mr. rogin. something that really concerns concept of negative liberties, and how she seems to espouse the negative liberties. someone who is going to be nominated to be an ambassador to the united states would look at the constitution as supporting the people or serving the people. i think just from what i have been reading about negative liberties -- host: what does negative liberties mean? caller: the charter of negative liberties. maybe mr. rogin can expand on

it. it looks at the constitution in that -- the constitution is about liberty and freedom of the individual. liberties, i think the way they look at that is that the constitution is , itthing other than that was a mistake because it did not grant specific powers to the government. from what i'm seeing, she does feel that way, that it was negative in what the government could do. host: let's let our guest respond. thet: i am not versed in doctrine of negative liberties. the way you describe it, it does not seem to match what i know about samantha power's philosophy.

advocate ofunch human rights and has never written anything i can't remember that contradicted a belief that the constitution was positive.air and i'm not really clear in what negative is and i don't think it isches what samantha power about. i don't think the evidence is there. i would say that her record is one of promoting human rights above all else. the way she does it is not the way that a lot of people who don't believe in international organizations and government would do it. that is a fair criticism. i'm not sure how that relates to this. one exchange that took place during the hearing was that with congressman rand paul. let's listen to the exchange and get your thoughts on it. [video clip]>> there's a long-

standing debate to train the executive and legislature that has crossed democratic and republican demonstrations about opposition to the use of force. to consult with you extensively at all times. >> sounds like an nonresponse. host: can you expand on that? guest: senator rand paul has been a leader of the movement in congress against the administration's use of authorization of use of force law to expand the secret military drone and detainee policies. rand paul, especially during the revelations about drone use and nsa surveillance, has been at the forefront of the argument that most of what the administration has been doing

since 9/11 and especially since the obama administration took office has been outside of the oversight of the american people and their elected representatives. he also believes we should not be doing any of this stuff. those are separate and distinct issues. of thea power was part white house that expanded the use of drones, the use of global war on terror authorities. it was not directly her portfolio. it is something she supports rhetorically and nominally in the sense that she is a senior official. in a way, it's not really fair to pin this on her. on the other hand, now that she's going to be america's resented it to the u.n., every issue will be in her portfolio and she will have to respond and defend those policies. debate.a legitimate rand paul, though he is not the best with accuracy of facts, he does represent a growing and

large constituency of americans and in congress that once better answers on all of this stuff. host: robert from west virginia on our democrat line. caller: i have a comment. saying if the united states is not the policeman of the world -- i'm sorry, we inherited that position from the british, who were playing the role in the 18th and 19th century. the first country following the treaty of paris to recognize from our own doctrine. host: your thoughts? guest: the question is not whether or not the u.s. is the sole superpower with international responsibilities. we are. large lots of the world depend on the american security umbrella, including the middle east and in east asia and europe

. that is an objective fact. the debate is over whether or not we should retract from that role. the obama administration has taken some steps to light in america's footprints around the world in recognition of the fact that americans are war weary and we have a fiscal crisis and americans are not necessarily huge military and diplomatic infrastructure we have built up during the cold war and remains largely as a relic of the cold war. now we have a different international landscape and responsibilities. the trend has been inside the americanation and the public opinion that america's role as world police should be scaled back, especially because iran weren iraq and so poorly managed. the question is if we do not do it, who will? the obama administration's idea is that we should promote regional actors, let's say , japan and south korea to

take greater roles and take some of the burden off the u.s.. that doesn't really seem to be going all that well. the other alternative is to let another world power take that up. competitors are russia and china, who have vastly different interests and values. it is not necessarily u.s. interest. great plan b. to what degree can a un --assador rice influence really influence policy? to influencebility policy is to get in front of one man, barack obama.

this white house is taken over control of foreign policy more than previous administrations. decisions are no longer primarily made at the agencies of the state department. everything flows to the white house. made sure that she was always at obama's side. at the same time, interventional lists such as susan rice -- interventional lists such as -- interventionalists such as susan rice and samantha power have not won the day. samantha power will have a lot of influence. whohe end, there is one man makes u.s. foreign policy and his name is barack obama. host: clark from new jersey on the independent line. caller: it seems to me that ms. powers is the wrong person to be she'st position because

an interventionist. we don't belong in the business of these other countries. every time we go in there, the people we fight alongside and for always turn on us 100%. we should not be in any other countries at all. i believe you said that she fight in libya. what happened there was, we actually fought alongside our enemies. our enemies are in power now, and the muslim brotherhood. i guess you are someone who agrees with senator rand paul on a lot of these issues. that's a legitimate position. it happens to not be the majority position in our congress or government and certainly not of the obama administration. the libya war is very complicated. on one hand, you had a dictator. on the other hand, you had rebels mixed with extremists.

government now is very pro- american but very dysfunctional. it is a mixed bag. in the end, when the obama administration has been grappling with is the struggle between security and stability and progress and promise of future democracy that the arab spring holds within it. -- never really come down on one side or the other of that. samantha power is on the side of intervention. there's no doubt. the obama administration is intervention shy. if you don't think intervention should be used in any circumstance, you don't agree with samantha power or the administration, in which case your recourse is to become politically active in fighting -- andho agree with you find those who agree with you. i want to make two

points. in 1816, the united states contemplated enslaving latin america for its own nationbuilding. it is now more subtle. but the racism still pervades. now what we have is companies like exxon going into countries like ecuador, exploiting the natural resources, creating an environmental nightmare and fromng for intervention the u.s. supreme court to forgive what they have done in ecuador and continue with their nationbuilding. you are looking for oil in foreign countries because we can't get away from it here. what obama proposes that we change our dependence on oil, everyone yells at him because we will lose coil jobs. -- coal jobs. host: we will take one more

call. caller: i support ms. powers and i think she is an incredible spokesperson. alarmed and pretty disgusted how another country has so much power over our senators, our entire congress. let's face it, we went to iraq because of this other country. the same people that encouraged us to go into iraq are now wanting us to go into iran. we need to think of our own country's interests before he put another country's interests in front of that. latin america, we rarely talk about it. let's talk about it for 30 seconds. the obama administration policy is not really about oil, it is more about crime and drugs. it has been a hands-off policy. i would say that while there is americanstory of

pseudo-colonial involvement in latin america, the obama administration is not really increased that. they have taken their hands off the steering wheel when it comes to latin america. we see a trend towards anti- americanism that is growing and might have something to do with neglect of that region. as far as the other countries are second caller is mentioning, she is referring to israel. or as the decades long debate that will continue over the role policy ---israel there is a decades-long debate that will continue over the role of the pro-israel lobby. the pro-israel lobby is the second largest lobby, after perhaps the gun lobby. it is not just your vote that counts, it is can you organize politically and influence the different organs of government. beenro-israel lobby has successful at that.

you can say it is disproportionate or you can say it is an american interest because israel is a staunch u.s. ally and beacon of democracy and a tumultuous and autocratic region. don't have a, i view to express to you one way or the other. the reality of the situation is that the pro-israel lobby is very well entrenched and they will continue to be well entrenched and that is part of the political tapestry that makes up washington. host: josh rogin writes for "newsweek" and "daily bast." -- "daily beast." you can see his writings at dailybeast.com. political and other news sources of reporting this morning that longtime white house ,orrespondent helen thomas whose career dated back to the died onadministration, saturday at the age of 92.