later former f.b.i. and c.i.a. deputy director phillip mud talks about the recent drone strikes that killed dozens of al qaeda members and the threat posed by al qaeda. we'll take your♪ host: good morning on a picture-perfect late sunday in april, a back to work week for members of congress. will integration be part of the debate? kathy rogers told -- told a washington state newspaper that the house could vote on an immigration bill by august. president obama is in malaysia, the third stop on a four nation asian tour that will conclude tomorrow in the philippines retort -- before returning to washington on tuesday. every sunday we begin our program with a look at what is on the other sunday morning

programs. today we want to get your comments on those shows. are they still relevant? do they still matter? we want to hear from you. (202) 737-0001 --host: many of you are already weighing in on our facebook page. from "the boston globe," an event getting in that -- getting lots of attention, two popes canonizing two popes. the scene, with over one million

people on hand, this headline comes from the boston "sunday globe." a piece that really got a lot of attention this week, this style section was called "meet the pressure." host: we will get your calls and comments in a moment, but for some look at the other sunday

shows and what you can hear on c-span radio. good morning, nancy. >> some of the topics include the return of congress this week, the middle east, and of course, politics. you can hear rebroadcasts of the program beginning at noon eastern time with "meet the press ergo guests include tony blair and bob menendez, the chairman of the foreign set -- the senate foreign relations committee. then, "this week," with jay johnson and elizabeth warren, the author of a new book. at 2 p.m., "fox news sunday," with mike pence, jennifer grass and sean the driver. "state of the union" follows at 3 p.m. with tony lincoln.

also, john barrasso of wyoming and ben cardin of maryland. at 4 p.m., "face the nation," with another appearance by benjamin netanyahu, claire mccaskill, and bob corker, the ranking member on the senate foreign relations committee. sunday network talk shows are on c-span radio and brought to you as a public service by the networks and c-span. rebroadcasts of those shows begins at noon eastern with "meet the press," "fox news sunday," "state of the union," "and finally, "face the nation." you can listen to them all on c-span radio, across the country , you can download our free app

for your smartphone, or go online to "c-span.org." host: back zero calls and comments on those sunday morning programs. we have been airing them since c-span radio first went on the air. this story has generated a lot of discussion over the last seven days "meet the pressure." a photograph their of david gregory. another point from the story the good news from all three shows is that they are amongst the most durable on tv."

host: this story, at one point from the article a psychological consultant was brought in. david gregory told wto be "it is a complete fiction. that is gossip reporting gone wild." joining us live on the phone, the media coverage person from a e.com. -- politico.com. why has this story generated so much attention? caller: meet the press has really suffered in the ratings over the last few years. back in its day it was king. in the past three years they have now been spurred, we are now in the third quarter of the

ratings. they have moved up and down with its key demographic. at the end of the day, people are looking to david gregory calling him a great reporter, not a great moderator. they say it is a problem with brand consulting. where you have the one person who really drives the show. arguably, speaking to some sort -- some sources at nbc, part of it was the psychological consultation where they spoke to his wife and friends to see where he was most comfortable. paul told me he checked it with nbc a couple of times to see if that was the correct term and they had no objections and it was not until the piece went out that this went up. clearly, nbc has been trying to figure out what they could to bring "meet the press" back to where it used to be.

host: let me share with you a couple of other pictures. "no interest in the outcome david gregory is no more or less self infatuated than his on camera colleagues. caller: at the end of the day these are all host driven shows. as we wrote this past week, the whole sunday show idea is kind of losing steam. you did mentioned that they still truck them quite a bit of viewers, but they don't set the agenda like they used to. it used to be that staff, the white house, congressional staff, would plan what they were going to say this week on the sunday shows. it would be the escalation point to what they were trying to do that week. now what kind of feels like you see the same senators all the time.

it is no longer a destination. we spoke to a few washington insiders who said that they never used to miss the sunday shows, but now doesn't matter because c-span will rebroadcasts them, there will be stories about them, you will get more on them later. it is not as big event that everyone needs to be around four. host: april 14, slightly lower last week than the -- with easter, so this is a better comparison. total numbers, just over 3 million, hosted by bob schieffer, 78 years old, he spent his adult life at cbs news. "this week" most often hosted by george stephanopoulos, also filled in with by jonathan karl. "meet the press," now third, 2.3 million, fox -- "fox news

sunday," two point 3 million. this is from "the new york post," "why people hate david gregory." she makes this point "if it is sunday, it is meet the jerk." "he is a thin-skinned elite who lives in the beltway double and can barely contain content for his audience. -- audience." harsh words. caller: they are, but remember the source. this is big contention that anyone will talk to you about in the networks, cbs only rates the first half-hour, and this is something that has been going on for years. it is because "face the nation" used to only be half of an hour long. you have to take that with a grain of salt. a lot of times they want to point you towards the demographic.

but i don't really think that advertising is the big deal for these sunday morning shows. that is where i think things are really dropping off. they might still have billions of viewers, but at the end of the day it is the people who really matter in washington. if the people are not clamoring to watch them, that is where you have the issue. what is a 15 minute interview on a sunday morning doing in a 24-hour news cycle? host: one final point from "fox news sunday," widely reported elsewhere, "in a memo to -- in a memo, nbc said he is -- they are proud to have david in the anchor chair. "nbc, publicly supporting nbc anchor david gregory as the

moderator of "meet the press here: caller: they have supported him for -- press." caller: they have supported him for quite some time. they double down on him, they renewed his contract, he is sticking around and not going anywhere. i think there might be some bets that once bob schieffer retires the dynamically change a little bit and those viewers of "face the nation" might find it almost . host: hadas gold, thank you for giving up early on a sunday morning. we appreciate your perspective. caller: anytime, thank you for having me. host: your calls and comments do sunday morning political talk shows still matter? why and why not? i'm tim -- -- from tim --

host: jermaine, new rochelle, new york. caller: good morning to you good morning. the competition is interesting. first of all, i think that sunday shows are very relevant. during the week it is pretty much opinionated, lots of obama bashing, they should do block block, block. afghanistan, soldiers coming back not been paid, stuff like that. that is generally what they talk about. during the week? they talk about nonsense all the

time, the same story. for example, chris matthews will come on, rachel maddow will come on and say the same stuff. or fox news, you have bill o'reilly saying the same thing that hannity is going to say. but on the weekend it is a bit different in terms of shows. apparently senators tend to get brave and want to show up on sundays. during the week they are not there, they don't want to show up. host: more than 500 of you have already weighed in on our facebook page. a lot of comments, sunday morning shows, do they still matter?

host: jerry joins us next from columbus, ohio. caller: at 805i am old enough to remember make rag on "meet the press." i miss walter cronkite and admiral. by gosh, where are the real journalists? i agree. a good example steve, if i may on this affordable care act, it was hardly ever brought up before we had an affordable care act. i have been on medicare for 20 years, i am not concerned, but they hardly ever brought out that the united states was the only industrialized country in the world that doesn't have national health care. for god sake, harry truman called for that in january of 1949 in his state of the union

but the ama and the chamber of commerce, the insurance companies fought it tooth and nail. it is just a shame. i can only quote what's his name, hl mencken. you know who he was? host: absolutely. caller: he said he will never go broke betting against the average intelligence of the average american. look at that, bill o'reilly they got themselves in a twist look what happened. host: do you watch the other sunday morning shows for information? caller: not very often. i watch c-span, and i watch cnn and msnbc once in a while but we need to get journalists. where are the writers? look at the congress.

remember what mark twain said, steve? suppose you are an idiot, suppose you are a member of congress -- and i repeat myself. he has been dead. caller: thank you --host: thank you for the call. you sound terrific at 85. this from twitter -- host: our focus this morning, sunday morning political talk shows do they still matter? we are basing it on a piece that got a lot of attention this past monday called "meet the pressure." michelle malkin weighed in on her column, calling it "missing tim russert -- tim russert."

"david gregory is a phony. the second answer, he is a jerk. no amount of brand therapy consulting can fix him. tim russert was highly respected on both sides of the aisle. he did his homework, did not pull punches, enlightened the audience conducting -- conducted real interviews. tim russert was a decent man with so many warm eulogies across the idealistic divide attesting to that. from our facebook page, more of your comments.

host: our next caller is jeff sellersville, republican line, good morning. www.c-span.org caller: -- caller: i wanted to echo what everyone else said. i cannot stand that guy, gregory, either. as a conservative and very much to the right of genghis khan, he would say, i love msnbc can't get enough i am addicted to it. on sunday mornings my favorite show is from 10 a.m. until 12 p.m., this woman named melissa harris harry. she is deliciously insane. call her the black cindy brady. host: are you and us? we lost you. you might have been calling a cell phone.

this is the story from "the washington post." "more than just received friday for the networks, the relatively large and affluent projects -- evil that they attract make them attractive to premium advertisers with $60 million coming from meet the press in 2007. yvonne, good morning. caller: i am a 72-year-old. i would never miss "meet the press" when tim russert was there. he was a giant, so great, he did not let the people on his show takeover. the questions that he would follow up and ask they had to answer. this guy, david? he is horrible. i am waiting for mr. russert's

son to get up there and take over that show. host: thank you for the call. front page of "the new york times" this morning, lots of attention from those of the roman catholic faith this morning. this is a photograph from yesterday. the details this morning, from "the l a times," one of them held to revolutionize the church . he viewed religion as a vehicle for justice and peace. the other figured in a revolution outside the church by battling communism and contributing to the downfall of the soviet union. canonize into former pope and a ceremony marking the first time that two popes were on hand for the event. they were most influential in the post-world war ii era."

mark is joining us from new era michigan. the question this morning, do the sunday morning political shows still matter? caller: as long as taxes are considered a political issue as opposed to the legal political hot potato issues for politicians, i thought they were supposed to be under the assertion that they were supposed to offer a non-burdensome tax to the public . they haven't qualified for it yet. so, it is a department of extortion driven by special interest groups and laws. host: john is next. decatur, illinois. caller: good morning. what irritates me about those sunday talk shows, they have the same people on every sunday. john king has been caught in --

john mccain has been caught and 500 lives, but they bring him on every sunday. everyone catches him in a lie, but they still bring him on. out of the five senators, they use two or three. you know that you guys can do better than that. host: thank you for the call. this is from bill king -- host: the president on his third stop of his weeklong trip to asia. inside "usa today," and online, the president at a news conference in malaysia, backing that country's handling of the investigation into the malaysian flight that is now believed to have gone down off the coast of australia. you can read the details at usa today.com. brian, connecticut, independent line. caller: i am overseas a lot.

in the news overseas, i often have to look at the news overseas to see what is going on in america. "bbc world" does great interviews. al jazeera, bill o'reilly calls that anti-american, but it is not. they will have people on from the ukraine and you are hearing their viewpoints. whether they are lying or not is irrelevant you still hear it from them. but the talk shows, all you have is what your last caller said, john mccain is on all the time giving his viewpoint. i hear it from the horses mouth rather than the horses asked when i am overseas. -- haorse's ass but i am

overseas. host: brian, thank you for the call. just tuning in or just listening on c-span radio c-span covers all of the sunday morning talk shows. we are focusing on the shows because of the peace by paul for ari and some of the other pieces written this morning like this from jennifer ruby and her opinion piece. "it is hard to say who is in more trouble, president obama or david gregory. his bosses let it be known that they hired a consultant to find out why his friends and family like it one most viewers don't. he seems prone to playing favorites. he seems laconic on the screen, like he just rolled out of bed. come to think of it obama's

ratings stink as well, he is disengaged on foreign policy and blacks distinctive policy." another quote from the piece in the style section -- lacks distinctive policy." another quote from the piece in the style section. "his predecessor, tim russert, the inquisitor, -- guest: --host: bill is joining us from buzzards bay massachusetts. caller: good morning. this month, april, 1945, a

journalist passed away and the nation cried, collectively cried. harry pyle died. i would like to know, what journalist if they passed away today would prompt anyone in any nation to cry over them? journalism today is terrible whether it is from this site or that side, there are no more journalist today and it is really, really, really sad. have a great day. host: do you watch the sunday shows? caller: i do. i have to watch them and then think about taking an average to find the truth in any of them. then come up the happy medium. there is no one-stop shopping for any particular opinion. and it is really terrible, terrible.

you have to do creative thinking . then you have to realize where they are coming from. are they searching for ratings? or the truth? host: thank you for calling from massachusetts, bill. i look at the weekly standard, other magazines "time magazine," was one of four different covers on one of the 101st influential people, including senator randy paul and barack obama. "the weekly standard," flying on faith, wishful shopping "is now a pentagon have it." another viewer with your comments --

guest: host: --host: every sunday we have "newsmakers." this week our guest is the founder of next gen climate. one of the topics we asked is whether he is comparable to the coke brothers, whom harry reid has been critical of on "the house -- on the house floor. [video clip] >> there are real distinctions between the coke brothers and us. one thing is that their policies line up perfectly with their pocketbooks, and that is not true for us. what we are doing is trying to stand up for ideas and principles of we think are incredibly important but have nothing to do with income or assets. we are trying to do this in as

transparent a way as possible. we are trying to be completely open and why we are doing it and what we are doing, documenting it so that there is no question about something going on here that is secret. i do not think that they have been huge embrace her's of transparency. lastly the coke brothers are continuing to prosecute highly successful business at the highest profitable levels. they are funding efforts without giving up at 6:00 in the morning to go to work in politics. they are going to work in their refining and chemical businesses. host: we hope that you tune in for our 30 minute conversation with john steyer, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect democrats in specific senate seat. back your calls and comments

sunday morning political talk shows, do they still matter? matt says -- journalism is dead have a great day. host: minneapolis, independent line, good morning. caller: hi. i am fine. i stopped watching those sunday morning shows -- --, it has been years. but there are some good ones. melissa ferri is good. the only comments i ever have on her show sometimes people go on and she focuses a lot more on

problems without having a lot of people on talking about solutions. host: thank you for the call. another viewer saying -- host: headline this morning from "the new york times," focusing on president vladimir putin and a couple of points from peter baker. "for years the suspicion that mr. pruden has a secret fortune has intrigued journalists and intelligence agencies, but he has defied their attempts to uncover it. numbers have been thrown around, suggesting may control even $70 billion --

host: reporting this morning from david baker and a look at his -- the look -- a look of the secret fortune of vladimir putin. debbie, democratic line. caller: what a wonderful topic. i love this topic, it is engaging in there are such diverse opinions. i think david gregory might be getting a bit of a bad rap. remember, these guys are hamstrung by corporate powers. i remember getting equally frustrated with tim russert about things like follow-up westerns. who was it, all the subtly? i want to say the quote was attributed to him, but you are entitled to your opinion, but

not your own facts. that is a big problem that we have here. also, those comments about the bob schieffer and face the nation? the interesting thing about that show the one that is probably the most credible of the three -- i don't know how it goes across the rest of the country but where i am we only get to see half-an-hour on sunday morning, then the second half-hour is presented at some ungodly hour, like 2 a.m. in the morning, which is rude at -- regrettable, because that is a very good show. the other problem i have, they bring out the same people over and over. bill kristol, george will -- i was they would retire him.

incomparable days passed us by. host: thank you for getting up early to share your comments. we have another 10 minutes on the sunday morning shows. coming up later, lawrence page will be joining us. we will also focus on al qaeda in the arabian and celeb. a reminder that tom snyder is joining us at 10:00 eastern time. host: a couple of e-mails that we received.

host: our next caller is bob from beacon falls, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, doing great, how are you? caller: fine. as many people say when they call, think god for c-span. host: thank you. caller: as far as sunday morning shows, i would not dream of watching anything other than c-span until 10:00. having said that, i wanted to ask you, why you would put michelle malkin's piece as a feature to the beginning of your show she is so polar it is unbelievable. host: the goal is to give you a

sense of what the people are talking about this week. we also read a quote from the president of nbc just to give you a sense of where the debate is going on this issue. there has been a lot written about this in subsequent days. that is really what this program is all about, to let you know what people are saying and writing and opinions to the left and the right. caller: that makes sense, i understand. one of the big problems to me is the hilarity in journalism. i hesitate to call it that and it seems that some people in it is my thing that it is easy to tell and they never give consideration to the other side of the aisle. of course, everyone is going to say that it is left-wing bias,

but i don't really see it that way. i just like shows with a little bit from each side. listeners know which ones never do it. that is what drags down journalism. host: we appreciate your comments. another viewer saying -- host: let me go back to this piece from megan scully. "a fantasy budget world, neither the pentagon nor the hawks on capitol hill really want to prepare for the worst case spending scenario." a look at the infighting within the pentagon and some of the needs and wants from members of congress and the military.

betty is joining us from virginia. do the sunday morning shows still matter? caller: absolutely. i think david gregory is great. he is very fair. i did not feel the same way with tim russert. i did not feel the same, i watched him for years, but i thought he was so unfair to hillary when he interviewed her. caller: -- host: thank you for the call. some of you may be reading the books at the top of the new york times best seller list. "flash boys," "face the music," "thrive," "10% happier," and if you want to watch the full interview with michael lewis, it is available on book tv.org.

kentucky, good morning. caller: [inaudible] [indiscernible] they are not news networks in my opinion whatsoever. mr. randy paul is not doing any favors by going on fox news. especially the hannity program. if anyone wants a good laugh they could just go back and forth to each program during commercial break. another thing about fox, these young blonde ladies with their breasts up to their behind's, it is disgusting. that is my opinion. thank you.

[laughter] host: thank you, ronnie. we will leave it there. this is from "the sunday review." "95% of applicants at stamford rejected five percent making it in." the piece, "getting into the ivies, colleges are more globalized. on of this agreement saying that the rest -- the best is "fox news sunday." sheila joins us next. good morning. caller: good morning. i am tired of all of it on sunday and in the evenings. i think they need to have more diversity. instead of just a white male. but a race thing, but you get tired of it.

maybe if you do a little diversity in stubble -- instead of sticking the white male up there from morning until night maybe it would be better programming. host: why don't you come on, we will hire you and you can do the show. caller: come on, you have my number. call me back. host: thank you, sheila. "the u.s. naval academy presents a challenging venue for cheryl stenberg and her lien in pitch. she makes the point about the class of 2017.

host: gloria, indianapolis, democratic line, good morning. caller: i am calling to make a comment about gregory on "meet the press." i would not miss it, i love the show. the problem is that people are continually trying to compare gregory with tim russert, and that won't be. but i also agree with the caller from a few calls back, who said that michelle malkin -- gregory must be doing something right for malkin to be so critical of him. she is so right wing and so polar, i wouldn't take anything she says. as far as i am concerned, if she is criticizing i will say that he is doing something right

because she is the type that criticizes anything that she thinks maybe leaning left. i would not pull her on anything. i think that gregory is great. host: thank you very much for the call, gloria. again, look at the overall total audience. next to the that you can see the key demographics. "face the nation" is now number one. followed by "this week." "meet the press," and then "fox news sunday." al, good morning. caller: i do not learn anything one of the other colors summed this up, i don't learn anything

from these sunday morning talk shows. when gasoline under george bush was not even as high as today we heard a mantra from the press that people were not going to go on vacation. that the economy was so bad. 15 years later i have yet to hear one positive story out of a rack -- out of a rack about someone being more free now. there is not one person there that nbc and others can cover and tell us that this proves they are more free today than what they were 15 years ago? there is clearly an agenda in the press, the whim of the democratic party. it is all about getting to the right cocktail party. they are all one in washington. host: we are approaching nearly

1000 comments on our facebook page. you can continue the conversation with others on facebook, tell them what you think about the sunday morning shows. the question -- do the sunday morning political shows still matter? why? why not? continue the conversation all morning and throughout the day on facebook.com/c-span. we will take a quick break, when we come back the perspectives of clarence page. later, terry jeffrey. in our final section attention turns towards ok that in the arabian peninsula. this is "washington journal," lens -- sunday morning, april 27. we will be back in a moment. ♪ [video clip]

>> i remember the first conversation i had on saturday was not about where you are from and what your school is like, it was about ukraine, politics, our believe in education and religion. after that moment i was like -- well, this week is going to be intense. it has been cool to see evolution of our friendships and bonds. just talking about our experiences, what we have learned, who we have met. >> i have always been really cynical about it, thinking i could never go very far in politics, that it was in my head as my opinion, that i thought maybe i want to make a difference he told us not to

get cynical because the nation does not need or cynical people. >> one of the things that gets brought up about our generation a lot is social media, expressing opinions there is conversation, we like to talk a lot, we like to get our opinions out there. >> this whole week has been about learning. i come from a small town that is very politically wholly at -- homogenic. there is not much chance for people who think the same to give their opinions out. being with the other delegates has given me the opportunity to learn other viewpoints and get my ideas out without the fear of being shunned. >> high school students from across the country discuss their participation in the u.s. senate

youth program, weeklong program held annually in washington. tonight at 8:00 on "q&a." >> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs of ads from washington directly to you putting you in the room at briefings and conferences, offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry but to you as a service to local cable or satellite providers, follow us on twitter, like us on facebook. host: we want to welcome back to columnist clarence page. appreciate it. www.c-span.org thank you for --guest: thank you for having me. host: a recent essay, so much about race relations, but you put out that after years of

suggesting that it has anything to do with ferocious opposition, there is an new etiquette in town? you quoted steve israel chairman of the democratic i have never with eric holder being one of the only ones talking about it inferring that grace animates some portion of the and they have not been moving off of a backwards reality to avoid it, but now they suddenly -- we are seeing a shift amongst democrats to me

this is sounding a lot like liberal talk radio, where this has been a mantra for a wild. omar -- bill marr on hbo has been constantly talking about the racism of the republican party. that said, i am personally troubled by it, i don't like to overuse the r word. there is a problem with racism these days with talking about it, everyone has different definitions of it. some folks think that if they are not wearing a ku klux klan robe, they cannot be racist. others believe that just bringing up the topic of race makes you a racist. it is interesting to me. the reason why we are hearing democrats talk about it more

right now is because we are moving into a midterm election season and it will be necessary to fire up the base and this is one good way to do it. host: two headlines this morning, one of them, the sterling clipper story, and the other, potential moral quandary as he reportedly said to tm z "it bothers me that you want to be associated with black people." guest: right, this is a bizarre episode here, for the owner of an nba team to be making disparaging remarks about hanging out with black people where has he been? this is very strange, but it certainly got people talking. host: your reaction? guest: on the one hand, it is showbiz gossip.

it is like paying attention to the cardassians. but in a deeper sense, this is one more episode of what i call racial eruptions. i am putting together a collection of my column over the last 30 years. it is funny, i have written more columns about what i call gas goose, and gotcha than anything else. these are racial eruptions. whether we are talking... i miss, dr. laura, or on and on. this is the latest. i have been trying to find a deeper meaning to this. racial segregation is not legal anymore, but racial suspicions have gotten even greater since the 1960's.

when you don't have the various other versions of overt racism out there, there are still suspicious people out there. people wondering if this person is legitimate or not. this is something that we absolutely have to deal with today, this is too easily exploited in the world of politics. we have seen this from the willie horton campaign to various types of what they call a dog whistle politics. it appeals to the resentments that people have about the notion that somebody else is doing something i am not and that is not fair. anybody is resentful when they get that feeling. when it is around race, it becomes particularly touchy. people are uncomfortable talking about race and racial lines. host: you have been writing about clive and monday.

-- cliven bundy and is losing support over his slavery remarks. guest: this is a good example of it. bundy became a political figure all of a sudden because he was good for ratings. on fox news, in particular, sean hannity has been driving the rally of support for him. he has been at this for 20 years. ever since he paid his grazing fees. he has been in and out of court repeatedly, this is not a new issue, but suddenly it is a hot issue because of what i call heatseeking media. he is now a guy that people follow around with microphones. on one occasion microphone from "the new york times" was across from him, he was expounding on

black people. why he decided to get off the subject of grazing fees and why he got onto the subject of low income african americans? i don't know. but everyone knows that he talked his way into what should have been an embarrassing situation, except to was not embarrassed. he made in a statement about how if people get upset about that, then dr. king's dream hasn't happened. i think i know what he is driving at, but it is not clear. his own daughter says he is not a guy who has been primed and coach to go on television as a political figure. he is someone who has gotten caught up in the question of news and as a result he has become a controversial figure. this happened with the star of "duct i missed you." i am sorry, it is one of my favorite shows.

i had a theory all along that someone was going to catch richardson off the air, or robinson, catch them off their in some statement it is going to offend somebody, and sure enough it happened. host: the president this morning at a news conference calling donald sterling's comments incredibly offensive, also referring to the comments of on the -- saying "if an ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don't have to do anything you just let them talk. -- talked." host: guest: yup that is true. that is interesting that the president spoke out about this and not about the affirmative action decision the other day. guest: we did hear from the attorney general, who called the dissent courageous.

guest: i thought it was a beautifully written dissent. new get both sides of the debate there. when the president's press secretary was asked if he had anything to say about it, he didn't. to me that was interesting because affirmative action has become a tough issue politically, for republicans and democrats, depending on who they are talking to him who is listening. in this case the present decided to avoid getting into the fray, but he thought it was ok to get into the fray around a nevada rancher and the owner of the la clippers. pick your battles, right? host: you pointed out the decision of dissent from justice of the mayor, the other coming

from ruth bader ginsburg, writing that "from members of historically marginalized groups who rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, this can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy it reserves the fully in government. host: what --guest: what i thought was impressive about her statement was we have two members of the supreme court that were beneficiaries of affirmative action clarence thomas and sonia soto mayor. thomas used to speak openly in support of the program that helped him get into the ivy league. later, he turned sharply against affirmative action. sonia soto mayor was very eloquent in her autobiography about how affirmative action opened the doors for her at princeton. doors where she would not have

been aware of these avenues these possibilities, coming from the bronx. she wound up graduating as an honor student from their. what is important to me is not how they get into i'm disturbed by the high dropout rate. that wasn't the case with justice sotomayor. she made the most of it and wound up on the supreme court. she talks about that in her opinion. i think it's something that we need to pay attention to, because that's what it's supposed to be all about opening up opportunities not only for minorities to be able to move up and pursue the american dream, but also so that white americans can enjoy the benefits of diversity in our society. host: one other point, thorks because the decision was 6-2. elena kagan recused herself from ruling in this decision, and justice steven briere joined the majority. here is the majority opinion written by justice kennedy, who

said "this case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. it is about who may resolve it. there is no authority in the constitution or in this court's precedents for the judiciary to set aside michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters." that was a 58% majority vote by michigan voters. guest: look what he's talking about. he's not talking about affirmative action per se, he's talking about who should decide it. it should be the courts and legislatures or should it be the voters. essentially this is an important decision for democracy, i think, because what the court was saying is that in an issue like affirmative action which has got so many different nuances to it, it's best for the voters to decide both ways, of course. you have the majority -- i go back to 1948. you had a majority of americans who thought interracial

marriage ought to be illegal. you know if you leave it up to a majority you could run into a minority having their rights violated. that became the debate here for affirmative action. you know steve, as far as fundamentally, affirmative action hasn't recovered from 1978 decision. this court reiterated that the double message of the decision, which is, number one, you cannot have racial quotas, racial or gender quotas. number two, it's ok to take race into account. now, do those conflict? affirmative action is always conflicted. you go back to the original executive order signed by j.f.k. and l.b.j. 50 years ago, and you'll find they don't call for quotas, but they say -- the decision said that we must take affirmative action in order to ensure that people are hired and not discriminated against.

that's the kind of language we see repeated over and over again in different affirmative action decisions. there's a bit -- there's always room for both the courts and for voters to refine affirmative action, but we have moved -- i frankly like the phrase that's used over in england and other places which is a positive discrimination. i mean, if you're really being candid, that's what we're talking about here, positive discrimination, to discriminate in favor of those people who are historical victims of racism sexism, etc. of course, being candid gets you nowhere in politics. host: our guest is clarence page, a columnist "chicago tribune" and syndicated around the country. how many? host: 100 to 20 hundred. we're trying to keep papers alive these days, but it's going to take a little help here these days. host: we thank you for the retweet promoting your appearance this morning.

host: i'm trying to learn these 21st century technologies here and all that, but you can follow me on twitter @cptime. that's clarence page time. i'm a step ahead of the times, by the way, and also on facebook. of course, the "chicago tribune" website, as well as youtube. nowadays, i do videos of my columns, as well as columns themselves. still trying to figure out these internets. a lot of fun. host: clarence page, glad to have you on this sunday morning. >> glad to be hour. host: phone lines are open. kevin is joining us from marshall, texas, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, mr. page. i'd like to make the connection he said a statement that bundy had made really has no connection to race in why he made it. i mean seriously, there is a connection between -- liberalism failed. i think that was the statement he was trying to make.

it failed for the black race, and it fails obviously for the ranchers. but a comment is -- here's the problem i see as a white person. this is the problem i see with race relations. if you remember, early in the presidency, he made a statement about cambridge police saying they acted stupidly and that it was time for a national conversation. host: right. caller: which i agree. i mean i used to work with many black african-americans, and we just had the best time. i mean, i learned so much from them. but there was no limit on what we said. i mean, some of my co-workers would even make racist comments from both sides, and we'd talk about it laugh about it, sometimes get mad, but then we worked together. and whenever someone says something now in the press, like bundy, and he's a racist,

shove him down, just like that. host: kevin, thanks for the call. let me put his comment on the table and also this from another viewer and say mr. page, what do you think about al sharpton and jesse jackson and their racist remarks in the past? collectively with all of that, your comments. guest: how much time do we have? first of all, the connection with grazing fees and refusing to pay them and how liberalism has failed for black folks, i still don't see the connection other than the fact that, to me, clive and bundy has become a welfare king living off of public lands, making money off of federal grazing lands and not paying his fees. i'm not willing to say this, glen beck, with whom i'm not in agreement that often, was fighting sharp about this, because beck has ranchland out in texas and he charges people grazing fees for using his

land. it doesn't -- i don't see the logic here. that's what i'm talking about here. now, in regard to the second point he was making. host: the second point was jesse jackson and al sharpton. guest: yeah, i have -- first of all, i've had many adventures over the years quoting and sometimes rebuking jesse jackson and al sharpton for things they said, which there were other times in which they said things that were true were truthful. the main thing, is whatever you say, you ought to be accountable for it whether you're jesse jackson, al sharpton, or for bundy, or whoever else. i don't get this well, you're another kind of response on these episodes, i'll get back to another point the caller made about the normal day-to-day rapport across

racial lines. i agree 100% that -- like we're a lot more comfortable with racial conversations than we are now. for example, my favorite example is the n word, richard pryor's first hit album use would the n word in its title. you can't do that anymore. a rapper called naz a few years ago tried to get -- tried to use the n word for a title on his album, and his major record label refused, because wal-mart wouldn't sell it, and wal-mart controls 40% of the c.d. market. so yeah, speech has become tighter over the last 50 years, no question about it. i have written about what i called the politeness conspiracy. that's the p.c. that i'm really concerned about, where weather we say to ourselves, just out of a wish to be polite or to avoid making trouble, we don't say anything across racial lines and i think that's not good. we should be more comfortable with our public. you only become comfortable

across racial lines when you get to know each other and that again, is another argument for affirmative action in terms of encouraging diversity in the workplace or in schools so people can communicate more often on a day-to-day basis. host: we love to learn new things. but wal-mart 40%? guest: yeah, yeah. in fact, those are old figures. this is back about three or four years ago. i don't know who buys c.d.'s now. even i stopped -- well, my wife buys c.d.'s. he the last c.d. store in washington, d.c., just closed over in dupont circle. so i don't know who buys c.d.'s now. but yeah, wal-mart controls a major portion. host: we'll go to philadelphia next with clarence page, as i understand indicate columnist with the "chicago tribune." -- syndicated columnist with the "chicago tribune." good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i hope you can allow me to make my point. my point is you can see racism, especially with some come from

the republican party. look at the president obama elected president. look at the outright disrespect towards him, like when he had to say to the union, one congressman saying you lie. i mean questioning of his birth certificate. i never seen a president that had to produce his birth certificate to show that, in fact he was an american. and look at eric holder. i've never seen an attorney general coming under attack like he has. and then you hear these racist comments or the culture or he's a food stamp president. all this is coded rasmse, and you don't hear none of the prominent republicans, mitch mcconnell, speaker boehner any of them speak out against these idiots. i'd like to get your you know, can you comment on that, please? thank you. host: thank you, milton. guest: very good point he raises. this is the conversation these days. if you turn it to liberal talk radio, this is what you hear every day about everything from the birthers to louis gomer,

etc. and how racist the republicans are. the conservative talk radio, you'll hear the flip side that says it's the liberals who are being racist. this is what's interesting about the bundy episode. it was not a liberal that came out him, it was conservatives, those who supported him suddenly backpedaling away from him at 90 miles an hour, senator rand paul, the senators from nevada, you have the republican party. the head of the republican party, why is he condemning a man -- you don't even know if he's a republican or not. republicans have been trying extra hard to reach out to more racially engender diversity, and then something like this comes along and it's a big embarrassment. again, as i mentioned, sean hannity, who latched himself to bundy every night, campaigning for him, suddenly now he's

still -- he still believes in the cause of freeing up more federal land, but it's like bundy has been pushed to the background by hannity, who demothers his statements as he should. it shows you how even up when don't to want play the race card race can creep into issues that would seem to have nothing to do with race like federal grazing fees. host: let me share with you this tweet from james, who said steve, please correct mr. page's comments that phil robinson slipped up, implying he made a racial statement. he made a gay comment. do you want to follow up? guest: he did talk about black folks too. i can't remember the exact statement now, but i remember it that -- if you look at the entire interview, he made statements that sounded like he was disparaging of african-americans. i don't think he really meant to be.

they're both the same age, and i know he's the kind of fellow who i used to know well when i was in the army who&haven't been around black folks that much, and thus make statements that are embarrassing. but when you're playing in the big leagues, as he is now with major media then you have to be more mindful of your comments, but, you know, it really hasn't hurt the ratings for the show as far as i am tell. >> and you still like the program? guest: it's a very well done program, very clever. i used to hate so-called reality tv, like the kardashians and some of the other shows that are super popular and about as empty-headed as they can be. i think there's a real cleverness to "duck dynasty," which does not -- it has you laughing with the people participating, not laughing at them which is my problem with honey boo boo.

host: i can't top that so let me share with you from the hill newspaper, we'll turn our attention to healthcare. this is the headline. the obamacare exchange, she points out that oregon is set to become the first state to drop its obamacare exchange in transition into the system managed by the federal government, the decision follows months of technical issues that have made oregon's marketplace one of the worst in the country. i mentioned that, because clearly the affordable care act is going to be front and center for a number of republicans running in key senate races, races that you're following, including in arkansas, where tom cotton is challenging senator mark pryor. here's one of the latest ads on behalf of the cotton campaign. >> we received a letter from our insurance company. as of december of 2014, we would no longer be covered by blue cross blue shield. well now when somebody tells you if you like it, you can keep it, you believe them. but that's not so in this case. you think that you're going to be just one of those lucky people, but then to find out

that it's happening to many so many, and again, that's why so many need to stick together, balls there is strength in numbers. host: clarence page that's for americans from prosperity. guest: right. this is the kind of thing we're going to be seeing more and more of this year. it will be interesting. the republicans have been making a theme out of repeal obamacare and some republicans have been saying privately recently they hope they haven't peaked too soon, because public sentiment toward the affordable care act are starting to turn around, just starting to. but as more and more people are enrolled and they're finding that they're not losing their coverage, contrary to the anecdotes of that or they're getting a better deal than they had before and they're getting notice they didn't have before etc. etc. host: in fact, the president

said don't run away from it. guest: mary in louisiana, run away from president obama and be a democrat, because the base among democrats, you've got to get it out to help re-elect her, if she's going to get re-elected and same thing is true of other democrats in the house and senate. i think the question is as republicans, they're asked more and more what will you replace it with? they've got to come up with answers. they're starting to do it, but they're having a real problem though, but for the last several years, they've been -- i mean, you've got a lot of alternative ideas on the republican side, but no consensus among republicans as to which one of these we rally around, and that is going to be i think a very important issue this year.

host: let's stay in arkansas. this is the responsibilities by senator mark pryor who is up for re-election. he's being challenged. here is his campaign ad in response to some of the charges by the cotton campaign. >> i'm mark pryor and i approve this message. >> it's in the congressional record tom cotton voted four times to begin turning medicare over to the insurance companies. even voted to raise the age for medicare to 70. the national committee to preserve social security and medicare says cotton's plan cuts benefits. aarp says it removes the guarantee of affordable health coverage. so don't be fooled. tom cotton is running from his record. a record that would jeopardize your retirement. host: that's in the mark pryor campaign in arkansas. i want to share with you a story that got a lot of attention, the "new york times" had a pome out last week showing that mark pryor up by 10 percentage points in arkansas, but this piece saying that despite the "new york times" poll -- and this is from the "new york times" dashese

problems ton lurk for democratic incumbents in the south. guest: quite right, and they are all in states where barack obama is not popular with the electorate. these are red states we're talking about here. but democrats what they're doing right now in cases like this they're running -- i wouldn't say away from obama, but definitely running for the care in obamacare, that the a.c.a. offers benefits that are very important and will be increasingly popular. and now is the time to point this out and to not act like i made a mistake by supporting the a.c.a. host: john from cincinnati, ohio, our guest, if you're just joining in or listening on c-span radio is clarence page,

syndicated columnist and on the editorial board of the "chicago tribune." john good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question concerning the strategy for the democrats in the 2014 election. it doesn't seem to me that a lot of people are not pointing out that the affordable care act is now popular as you say, the numbers aren't turning around but a lot of people aren't pointing out that the president did act outside the law in delaying some of the mandates. i mean, it's still very unpopular, and even with the extra activity, it's still -- i don't see how this can be a win for the democrats. i go back to some of your earlier callers who said the president has never subjected to this kind of disrespect. weren't you paying attention during the bush participation? he was called a nazi a war criminal, everything under the sun. like i said, i don't really see where they have disrespected. host: thank you, john. we'll get a song. guest: politics ain't beanbag

t. goes back to mr. dewey 100 years ago. and yeah, it gets rough stuff on both sides of the line, and i think when i look at disrespect that was put up to george w. bush and to bill clinton and hillary clinton back in the 1990's, who were accused of every contained of thing, including kidnap, murder drug smuggling, all these kind of things, and the whole birther narrative doesn't sound like that much that's new in politics. but i think getting back to the affordable care act, all along even during the heated a.c.a. debate the public dent like obamacare, which is a republican term, but they liked the features that obamacare the a.c.a. offered, and that's still true. you're seeing a republican now talk about mend it, don't end it or let's repair, it not repeal, that there are things like -- well covering

preexisting conditions and other features that the affordable care act offers that we didn't have before. there's a lot of positives that the a.c.a. can be sold, but that's what i was referring to earlier when i said that the democratic strategy is to not so much push obama as to push the care just that's where the real vote-getter comes from. host: our next call is from eric in rome georgia, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. steve, let me contrast these two. look at the page. the democrat has a problem to white liberal. the reason i say that is is you have people like ron white ready to cut med and air talking about strength and the n.s.a., but you hear these people say nothing about stopping this. ronald reagan, i'm trying to tell you he had a draft when

he was the president. bill clinton came into office, but this is not going to get to hillary. she's not a liberal. she's basically a center right. that's how she will govern. the reason why i say she would be a one-term president because the blacks would not support her during the second term. we're getting to this. you have bill clinton come up as a right president. don't ask, don't tell nafta, he deregulated, he also cut social programs. he did not reform them, he cut it, which is part of the problem. basically he continued on with ronald reagan. he also came in the south with the southerners when he came down to help and he talked against black people and homosexuals. ronald reagan did, this is why when he took office, bill clinton said the era of big government is over. host: we'll get a response.

thanks for the call. guest: yeah, it's interesting, because you define center right, center left these days, and i think that's important to hear is the caller, obviously not satisfied with the moderation of the clintons, but that's the sort of politics that put democrats back in the white house after 20 years of near exile from 1968 to 1988. democrats won the majority of the popular vote in only one election during that time, and now since then, you had republicans have won the popular vote and only one election since then. and that's the kind of way that democrats were age to get back into the white house. the question is welfare reform, yeah a lot of people dent like it when it was first passed, patrick moynihan, mothers

sfleeping grate on the street. a few years later happily able to say he had been wrong. child poverty actually dropped by about two million kids in the wake of that reform, and that was when the right and left worked together. which brings me to the incarceration issue the caller brought up. yeah with the lock them up policies back to the nixon years, we got too many people in jail now. i wrote about this quite a bit lately, and there's a new coalition where you have people like patrick leahy and dick durbin getting together with ted cruz and rand paul to look at and implement alternative pirnlts. you've got the obama administration now announcing the release of more nonviolent offenders. you have a big push now, the right wants to reduce the

population to save money, and the left wants to help integrate folks back into society. this has become a leader in reducing the prison population. rick perry doesn't brag about it, and because of the way texas politics are set up, there's democrats in the texas legislature that are taking the lead on this mostly. but what we are seeing now a turnaround and the thing to me steve, you've got the right and left working together quite a lot in this town and across the country. you almost never read about it. we in the media, one of our pathologies is that we love bad news. we love conflict. if you are throwing down somebody, we'll be there to cover. but when you're working together, what's up with the back pages? host: some new hampshire activists are going to travel to austin, texas, to meet with governor rick perry. also this weekend, the union leader pointing out that senator ted cruz is in new hampshire this weekend meeting with new hampshire republican

activists, and this story this morning from inside "the washington post," as hillary clinton traveling to louisville kentucky, to meet with 7,000 women who are part of a kentucky international convention of methodist women, saying i've always cherished the methodist church because it gave us our great gift of personal salvation, but also the great obligation of social gospel. you can read the story online at washingtonpost.com. this tweet from a viewer saying steve, i'm curious as to why you thought it was necessary to mention that the tom cotton ad was paid for by the coch brothers. because it was. and we'll point out that when democrats are paying for ads outside the candidates themselves, we'll mention them as well. by the way, tom is our guest. he is a democratic billionaire helping democratic candidates. he joins us on "newsmakers" following this program at 10:00 eastern time. tone friday tampa, florida, i happened pent line with clarence page. good morning. caller: good morning gentlemen. how are you doing? guest: good morning. caller: real quick on

healthcare as far as covering preexisting conditions and keeping kids on their parents' healthcare plan, you could have put that on literally one sheet of paper. it's the other 3,000 pages we don't like about obamacare. the between liberals and progressives have resorted to name calling is because their policies have failed. they failed on healthcare. on the economy, on jobs, on foreign policy. and this is all they have left. it's the reason why they're going to lose in 2014, and it's the reason why they're going to lose in 2016. thank you, gentlemen. host: thanks for the call. guest: yeah, i think liberal policies have failed, and it amuses me. the most popular program in the federal government is medicare which was a very liberal program. i am advocating all along just expanding medicare to cover everybody.

we don't need 3,000 pages of legislation. i put that question to obama on stage during the campaign when he was running against hillary clinton, and it got a very favorable response from the audience. but president obama, and heaven knows what kind of second thoughts he has now about his strategy in approaching that whole issue, tried to go for the -- a program was zooned by the heritage foundation deserve active think tank, and that's the foundation of both a.c.a. and mitt romney's massachusetts healthcare plan. i'm not going to replay that whole debate again, but i think the question is, if we're making an election forecast, i think the caller is right that republicans have a distinct advantage in 2014. democrats have a distinct advantage in 2016 if they don't blow it. type tom from delaware, last call for clarence page. thanks for waiting. caller: good show. i'm going to make a quick comment about the clippers owner.

now, what would you do or what could you do bggets snatch his team, -- besides snatch his team? if he doesn't want to be or his family or anybody to be associated with black people, and i'm a black man now. that's his business. now, he hasn't shown or he hasn't demonstrated anything against affirmative action or anything like that that i can see by hiring coaches and players. and one quick stereotype where i'm from, one quick stereotype is that white people can make money with people that they don't like black people. now, again am i wrong for saying i don't want my son to be associated or be walking around with gay people? am i wrong with that? see, the government puts it all in the same boat. type thanks for the call. clarence page? guest: i'm not sure what the gay remark was, but as far as the -- as i said earlier, the

very n nba team owner not getting paid -- not being around black people -- or the girlfriend host: girlfriend. guest: girlfriend, thank you. to me it's like a vegetarian owning a cattle farm. i mean it's weird to me. it contains its own punishment. because if you're talking about a sport that is so heavily tied to and supported by african-americans, it would seem like that would not be a wise group for you to offend. he doesn't need government to come in and twhork out the marketplace. i think it's going to do the top. host: a vegetarian owning a cattle farm? guest: like i say, it's like bundy owning an nba tv. it doesn't compute, just doesn't make sense. so i think, in any case, we'll see what happens. i don't do sports normally, but this is fun. host: clarence page of the

"chicago tribune," syndicated across the country, also on twitter and facebook. thank you very much for being with us. guest: thanks for having me, steve. i love your audience. it's really great. host: we have one other tweet. hey, steve when will the koch brothers be on tv soon? they have an open invitation to come on. they are pretty reclusive. they don't do too many interviews. but they are welcome to come on any time. thank you very much. thanks for all your calls and comments. we're going take a short break. terry jeffrey is going to join us, columnist, also the editor of cnsnews.com and later, phillip mud, a former deputy of counterterrorism. we're going to focus on al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. you're listening and watching "washington journal" for this sunday morning, april 27. we're back in a moment.

>> they never had any churches, never murdered my little girls as was done in birmingham. never guilty of any acts of violence during the entire 33 years or more that the honorary muhammad has been teaching us. the charge of violence against us actually stems from the guilt complex that exists in

the minds of most white people in this country. they know that they've been violent. in their brutality against negros, and they feel that someday the negro is going to wake up and try and do unto them as they have done unto -- do unto the whites as the whites have done unto them. we aren't a violent group. we are taught by the honorable muhammad to be -- to obey the law, to respect everyone who respects us. we're taught to display courtesy to be polite. but we're also taught that at any time anyone in any way inflicts or seeks to inflict violence upon us, we are within our religious right to retaliate in self-defense to the maximum degree of our

ability. >> from october 1963, an interview with nation of islam leader malcolm x today on american history tv's "reel america" at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome terry jeffrey. else the editor of csn news and a columnist read online on a number of different web sites. good morning. thanks very much for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: i want to begin with a piece that got a lot of attention this week, including a feature on the drudge report, 86 million full-time private sector workers sustaining 148 million benefit takers. we'll focus on your story but where did you come one these numbers? guest: these come from the census bureau income statistics. they publish both who get benefits, which are welfare and nonmeans tested government benefits, like social security

medicare, veterans benefits. they also publish statistics about how many people work in various capacities, including -- the number there is full-time, year-round workers, so they work at least 35 hours every week and worked at least 50 out of the 52 weeks in 2012. host: you point out that these are the people who got up every morning, went to work in the private sector, and did it week after week. these are the people who built america, and these are the people who can sustain it in the free country. the liberal media has not made them famous like the polar bear, but they are truly a threatened species. guest: yeah. what i was trying to do, steve, was to give some representation of what i think is a fiscal problem in the united states of america. we have about a 17.5 trillion debt. we have massive unfunded liabilities, particularly in medicare and social security and we also have a growing welfare state where people are getting means tested benefits like food stamps and so forth. so what he want to do is show who's paying for that

primarily. they're not exclusively the people paying for it, and who's refusing it. in my story, i put other data. for example, there are a total of -- in 2012, there were a total of 103 million full-time year-round workers in the united states. that included 16.6 million people who worked for government. i put the number in there but i subtracted it out for the headline figure. according to the census into rowe, in the fourth quarter of 201, is there were 108 million people who lived in households where one or more people received means-tested government benefits. that's things like food stamps w.i.c. essentially welfare benefits. so even when you count government workers, people whose salary is paid by the taxpayers, it, along with private sector full-time workers, you only have 103 million people who got up every morning, went to work paying taxes, and you have 108 million people getting means-tested government benefits.

now, up take the census into rowe figures, and add in medicare and social security and some other nonmeans-tested benefits like unemployment conversation, that goes up to 148 million. now, there's also about 3.7 million people who are getting veterans benefits, and i didn't count them in. that's where it comes from. it's a very real figure t. comes from the census into rowe. it represents the fact with a growing welfare state and a declining ability for people to hold full-time year-round jobs, we are more and more becoming a society where beam live the traditional life of work and self-sufficiency and responsibility are more and more caring people who are getting government benefits. host: you look at a $17 trillion debt, how long is this sustainable? guest: it's not, and you hear politicians in both parties in washington, d.c., saying the fiscal situation in the united states is not sustainable. i believe there's something approaching $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities in

medicare. there's not northerly that much in social security. those are the nonmeans-tested benefits. i think there's a great unwillingness on on the part of both parties to reform medicare and social security to put them a fiscally sound basis f. they don't do that, eventually we're going to get -- right now, part of the debt -- when you talk about the $17.5 trillion debt, almost $12 trillion, not quite, is marketable, publicly traded debts, entities in china can buy, that and you me can buy, people in the public can buy. the rest is intergovernmental debt, which is money that the government borrowed out of the social security trust fund. the trust fund draws down, more and more of the debt of the united states is floating to fund these entitlement programs and debt programs is marketable debt that we actual have the to pay interest cash interest out. right now we have an average interest rate of about 2% on the debt. historically sometimes it's

been up about 6%. you look at a situation where b a decade down the road where we're going to have about $20 trillion in marketable debt owned by the public, and if the interest rate were to go back up to 6%, you're talking about $1.2 trillion a year just to pay the interest on the federal debt. that is absolutely not sustainable. host: let me follow up on some comments with clarence page in our previous segment. we focused on bundy, who questioned out loud whether or not blacks would be better off as slaves versus under government subsidies. his comments and the reaction that followed? guest: well, they're ignorant and racist comments, and he deserved to be shunned for them. i know there were conserve tives who had taken up his cause who condemn what he said and rightfully so. host: will this have any repercussions on the republican party? guest: i don't think so. i don't see the republican party that was particularly connected to this guy. no i don't see that. host: let's look at the

mid-term elections. we were focusing on louisiana arkansas, and north carolina r. these going to be pick-up states for the republicans? guest: well, i think it's pretty early still in this election cycle. if you look historically at mid-term elections the party that's not in power in the white house tends to take up seats. but the question is whether they pick autopsy lot of seats or just a few seats. there's been a few anomalies. big election years for parties that are out of power in the white house have been, for example, 1974, 1994, 2006, 2010 and those years have something in common. there's something that polarized the electorate and drove them out. in 1974 you had nixon resign as president because of watergate and the democrats picked autopsy lot of seats. in 1994, you had bill clinton had been pursuing his own national healthcare plan that wasn't very popular. they were withdrew it before election, so that was a big election year for republicans. in 2006, you had things were going very badly in the iraq

war, which obviously was connected to george w. bush, and that's the year the democrats went back and controlled both houses of congress. in 2010, you had people concerned not not about the obamacare legislation, but also the rapidlyesque -- the rapid escalation of federal spending and debt, and that's when the republicans were able to win back the house of representatives. i think it's unclear whether this year is going to be more standard midterm election that marginally favors the party that's out of power in the white house or whether it's a more single election. host: let me follow occupy one point. we're going to hear a lot, have heard a lot about the affordable care act, and these ads are going to continue into the spring and summer. is it effective to have these ads right now, and at what point will it fall on deaf ears, or is it an issue that resonates? >> well, i think it's an issue that resonates. i think people really care about it. this is something that affects them in their ofday lives.

all of russ going to need healthcare and i think there's still -- you know, the affordable care act is fundamentally unpopular, particularly with conserve tives. the problem for politicians in washington is there's a detaunt on obamacare in washington, d.c. i mean, the republican party funded obamacare. they haven't really done anything on restrict even its most obnoxious elements. for example, under the preventive services provision in the affordable care act h.h.s. issued a regulation that forces virtually all insurance plans, except those that are actually purchased by religious orders and churches, to cover abortion-inducing drugs and abortion-en deucing i.u.d.'s. that's 95 lawsuits that have been filed on that particular regulation. the congress, which is controlled by the republicans in the house of representatives democrats in the senate, funded that regulation.

they haven't even stopped that regulation. you have the catholic church saying this is a violation of the first amendment protected free exercise of religion, and both parties in both houses of congress are defending that. i think there's a lot of cynicism in the public about politicians in washington and their approach to this issue. host: our guest is the editor in chief of csnnews.com. he spent a decade at human events where. can follow follow on you twitter? guest: @terryjeffrey. host: brian is joining from us michigan, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, terry. i was looking through the lobbyist rules concerning washington, d.c. and there's a couple of rules that obviously would clear just about everything up, but they're not there now. lobbyists should have to log in and log out at the place of demashe washington, d.c., at the obvious, at their office.

number two no one has who works in the white house should ever allow -- to be allowed to be a lobbyist or work for a lobbyist not for a year or two years, and all these silly rules about sitting up or standing down for lunch, that was nothing. i was talking to a retired judge, and he said, well, you got to realize that they're the ones that make the rules. american citizens need to understand there's five lobbyists for every representative in washington, d.c., and my math has is including the staff. if we were to clear that up we would go a long way into getting down to some real business. host: thanks for the call. guest: first of all, lobbying is also protected by the first amendment. however, i recently read a book by former senator, the president of the heritage foundation, and it's called "falling in love with america

again." in the book, he points out that there is this expectation that people who work in the congress and other elements of the federal government end up working for the very corporations that they regulate and pass legislation dealing with. his argument is that benefits big business, which has the money to hire people, pay lobbyists, and in the book i think he calls it cashing in. i think there's just no doubt that that's true, that there are -- that the people, there's a symbiotic relationship between big government in washington, d.c. and big business. and part of that is exemplified through lobbying, and there's another thing. i wrote a column recently about another set of data, which every year they put out the median household income by county. then they publish a ranking of the counties in the united states. thevt richest counties and the poorest counties.

they count independent cities as counties. the independent county of falls church, virginia, where is straight down the road, you go to falls church, it was the wealthiest county in the united states of america. i looked up on some other data about falls church -- host: let me add the numbers, because from your piece, up point out the household income in falls church, $121,000 a year. guest: and that's the highest for any county in the united states. now, it's a small community, but thill, this is 10 miles from where we're sitting right now, 121,000. the number two wealthiest county is loudoun, which is further out in the suburbs. but fairfax county is one of the top 10. you had counties in maryland. i think there's seven out of the top 10. 31% of the people in falls church, according to the census bureau, actually work for the government. that doesn't count people who are working for government contractors. i think -- you know, the data doesn't present all this. they have 31% who work for the government but in falls

church virginia, the wealthiest place, you have people who work for government, people who work for contractors for government, and then people who make their living off of doing the normal things you do in a community to serve those people. literally, the wealthiest place in america is created that way by government. host: alabama? goim aaccording to the census bureau, it's the poorest county in the united states wilcox county. they have one remarkable thing in common, and i think it's telling, which is that they're both disproportionately dependent on government. wilcox county, if early correctly, is about 25% of the people in wilcox county who work for the government. i believe it's another 28% -- this was for the five-year period from 2008 through 2012, according to the census bureau. i think they had 28% are on senate, food stamps. if you assume they don't -- if

you assume that the people working for government in wilcox county, alabama are not collecting food stamps those are separate groups, u a majority of the people in the poorest county in the united states who are either work for the government or getting a means-tested government benefit. i think the middle part of america, the part of america of people who are going out and working, you know, full-time, year round, paying the taxes, they need to look at both those things, and there's a pathology there. on one side, it's we want people to be self-reliant, take care of themselves, be able to be free because they're economically free. on the other side, we have big government in washington, d.c., that in part profits off expanding the dependency state. host: townhall.com, one of the sites that people can read the work of terry jeffrey, our guest here. craig has this point, our government has given our nation over to china. china owns us unless we take care of our debt. gleets to tom, who's joining us from centreville

massachusetts, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, steve and terry. i'm a self-employed manufacturer. and in massachusetts, we've had so-called romney care, which is the affordable healthcare. my wife and i pay $17,500 a year for a policy that is not great, and it's very expensive. we pay roughly $8,000 a year in real estate taxes, then we pay our other federal and state taxes upon that. we think we're getting overburdened with taxation, and many of the people that we are in contact weekly in small business are seeing the same effect. i just wonder, how long do you think small business -- and i mean microbusiness, you know three or four employees -- can hang on in america because of the overtaxation of the

affordable care act, just plain tacks in general between real estate the normal taxes we all pay, and i see people closing up business day after day. some of our suppliers are closing. that means i have to scramble more. it seems like supply is becoming less and less because of the e.p.a. and government oversight. host: thanks for the call. guest: this gentleman points to a very serious problem. to get back to the affordable care act one of the main provisions -- of course, there's the individual mandate, everybody has to buy insurance or else pay a tax penalty. the supreme court said that was ok. i thought that was an enormous decision. there's a subsidy in obamacare, if you make up to 40% of the poverty level, you have your insurance in the individual exchange, not in the individual exchange, the government will give you a sliding subsidy. the closer you get to the poverty level, the less of a subsidy you get. but if you go $1 over 400, for

a family of four we're talking about $94,000 somewhere in there, the income could share with the poverty level for a family. if you're a married couple and have two kids and you're making $the 3,000 a year and you have to go into exchange, you're going pay a $17,000 health plan and the government might give you $7,000 to buy that. but if you make $1,000 $2,000 more, if you get a raise or if you improve your business, you lose that subsidy, and suddenly you have to buy this incredibly expensive healthcare plan. there's a huge -- there's two very perverse incentives there. one is for the person to not work harder and prosper, just to be frozen at that level. the other one is not to be married. two people, if they weren't married, they separate their income, they can live in the same household unmarried and they get the subsidy.

host: this is a comment, not a question, but one of our viewers saying if the republican party wants to reach out to minorities, they should look back at the legacy of the late congressman jack kemp. guest: jack kemp was a great man, and he definitely -- jack kemp one of his ideas is that they should reach out to the african-american community, and he absolutely was correct. host: let me share some news. this is from washington state, and representative kathy morris rogers, part of the g.o.p. leadership saying two things. first of all, the affordable care act is likely to stay. she said that there are 600,000 washington residents who have coverage through the affordable care act. she said we need to look at reforming the exchanges. she also kicked off her election campaign and said the house could vote on this as early as august. guest: here's a republican leader who has made her peace with big government. the affordable care act is

going stay, they're going to tweak it and do immigration reform. when the republicans talk about it now, the key element -- i mean the bipartisan elite in washington, what they want is to legalize people who are here illegally, which we did back in the 1980's. they want to do it again and i think the vast majority of people do not want to legalize people who have come here illegally and are violating the law by for example, using zpake stolen social security numbers and so forth. host: this is the editorial on immigration and the comments of the speaker of the house, john boehner, "the washington post" says mr. boehner comes clean -- he made excuses saying that some of his republican colleagues whined saying, oh, don't make they do this, this is too hard. "the washington post" says --

ghipe you see is evidence between big government and big -- the government accountability office has done a number of studies over the years of people who file what they call no match w-2's where the name on the w-2 doesn't match the social security number. the inspector general has also looked into this. basic what will they believe is most of the people filing the w-2's are illegal aliens or being filed on businesses on behalf of illegal aliens. when they look at the industries and companies filing those, they're all concentrated in certain places. it's concentrated in hotels, in restaurants, in agriculture.

there is one employer who filed 37,000 no-match w-2's in one year. i've looked at this issue over a decade i believe, looking at information from the inspector general of social security and the government accountability office. there's an illinois company years ago, and they don't reveal the names of these companies, but there's an illinois-based company that filed more than 30,000 no-match w-2's. the government doesn't look at these people. they say that section 6103 of the internal revenue code which protects the tax information protects the i.r.s. from giving that information over to the immigration enforcement authorities. but when you have a single company filing 37,000 no-match w-2's with the government, you know this is a big business that is profitting off of an exploiting illegal alien labor. i think those type of players have more sway with congress and the administration and that small businessman who started

his own manufacturing company and has to strowling pay for health insurance plan. he doesn't have the clout that the people hiring the illegal aliens do. host: if the republicans keep control of the house in january of 2015, who will be the speaker? guest: that's an interesting question. i know there are conservatives in the house not satisfied with john boehner. i remember back in the 1990's when newt gingrich was speaker, there was an insurgency to try and republican move him as speaker. and it did not succeed. but after -- you know, after a bad election, he decided he didn't want to be speaker anymore. i doubt that an effort to unseat bane we're work, but that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't want to be speaker. host: a lot of attention on the vatican and pope benedict and pope francis. guest: right. they're going to cannonize two former popes, pop john paul ii

and pope john 23rd. we are a living retired pope who's going to participate. host: it's never happened. guest: it's quite a remarkable thing. i was thinking about pope john paul ii this morning. chairman pope john paul ii is one of the greatest men of the 20th century. one of his great accomplishments was defeating the soviet union without firing a shot. i believe that and he ronald reagan joined together in a strategy that was designed to bring down the soviet union in part by giving moral witness. here's something i think probably most americans don't know, but i think it's a telling -- it was a telling moment in the 20th century, the same day that ronald reagan sat at the berlin wall and said, mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall, that very same day, pope john paul was in poland saying mass to millions of polish people. the solidarity union at the time was illegal, and he was

there saying mass saying lift up your hearts. you know what? the people of poland did, and the berlin wall came down, and the soviet union collapsed. i believe that was a large degree because of a polish pope who stood up and gave witness -- and by the way, wrote fantastic letters spelling out the moral truth, among other things, about economic matters. he wrote one which was on the 100th anniversary of another letter that was written. it's a brilliant document. you want to know a real, true understanding of the relationship between morality and christianity and economics, read pop john paul ii. anybody can get online and pull it up and read it. host: our guest is a columnist, seen nationwide on townhall.com and and the editor in chief of cnsnews.com. our phone lines are open, and

we welcome our listen others c-span radio, which is heard nationwide on x.m. channel 120. linda is joining us from bloomfield connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? i want to go back to the element of how everybody thinks the republicans will be winning whatever. from a perspective of a democrat but also a perspective of a economic developer, there are so many flams our government has had to snep to save large businesses, medium-sized businesses, small businesses, allow young people to get a favorable education here in the united states and they don't have to go out of the country to receive a better education. there are so many things that e.p.a. has done to save people's lives so large

government has purposeing poured poisonous things lieu the water. the electrical companies and gas-- the electric company and gas companies given or favoritism. everything from babies being born with all kinds of defects. you have to have insurance options in place for people. i lived in group anime trends -- i lived and grew up in the insurance capital of the world. i could not afford insurance as a young person from our regular insurance. host: did you want to respond? guest: she's talking about the price of insurance in government. in the 1930's, people had a doctor that they knew, that cared for them. local hospitals. we had the rise of third party

payers, private insurance companies in it for profit. then you had medicare, and acted in 1965, of bj signed it, where the government -- medicare and medicaid where the government started paying for a lot of it. we used to have local community hospitals and private hospitals nonprofits, religious hospitals. at some time we had this rise of the government paying for health care, and we have the rise of for profit hospitals and a decline in nonprofit hospitals. at the same time, the government is paying billions of dollars in tax money to for-profit hospitals. i honestly believe -- health care should be a place where people are able to practice charity. there are definitely going to be people who need help or health care that they cannot pay for.

it ought to happen at the lowest level possible. the doctor who can take care of someone for free should do it. a local nonprofit religious hospital that can provide care to the community for free should do it. if the local government needs to step in, they should do it. but what we have now is a system that is socializing on the federal level where people over in that building are going to pay for it with their tax dollars and a lot of the money is going into the hands of for -profit corporations that don't really practice charity or traditional morality when practicing health care. host: matt devon is challenging mitch mcconnell. this was an ad released last week by the campaign. >>[video clip]

>> my dad was an officer in the army. >> my dad loves god. >> he leads by example. >> he will make a great u.s. senator, and i should know. i've known him my whole life. >> my dad is awesome. >> i approve this message. and i approve these messengers too. >>host: here is the latest from the mitch mcconnell campaign also in the kentucky senate primary. [video clip] . >> mitch mcconnell is not a show horse. he is a genuine kentucky workforce. last year he saved 99% of kentuckians from an income tax increase. he saved kentucky jobs. he fights for kentucky miners against obama's war on coal and he is leading the fight against obamacare.

>> i mitch mcconnell and i approved this message -- i'm mitch mcconnell and i approved this message. host: polls show mitch mcconnell ahead. the primary is next month. matt bevin is spending a lot of money and getting support from a lot of tea party activists. guest: if someone in the primary can knock off the leader of the senate -- the senate minority leader, that would be cried -- quite a remarkable thing. i haven't been watching the details. i don't really know the issues at play right there. host: wayne joining us from harrisburg pennsylvania. caller: the republicans -- people in the republican party now, most of the republicans just like democrats, is poor. and i want to know why, if you

can answer this question, the affordable health care act helps poor people. it helps poor people more than the rich or the middle class. why don't the poor republicans want to take the affordable health care? can you answer that question? host: thanks for the call. host: when you look -- guest: when you look at what the affordable care act does for people in poverty, it lifts the level of income for people. medicaid is a federal government health care program. it is a means tested government program that had a remarkable expansion in the last several years. when someone goes on medicaid, they become dependent on the government. we want a subsidy. if you're going to have some set

-- somebody in poverty who needs health care, take care of it on the local community and private level. the more people we get dependent on the federal government, the worse off we are. what we've seen so far is a pattern where it seems irreversible. entitlement programs only get bigger and bigger. a larger share of the population is becoming dependent on the government and not self-sufficient. i think we want more people self-sufficient and independent and not relying on the federal government. host: the president is in malaysia. they are investigating malaysia airlines flight 370. a lot is focused on the u.s. response to the ukraine. we are hearing from secretary of state john kerry, who again said more sanctions are coming down the pike if russia doesn't change its ways. guest: i think the u.s. government should do what he can within reason to try to deter the russian government -- what

it can within reason to try to deter the russian government from interfering in the ukraine. there is an ancient lesson of foreign policy. there is such a thing as the balance of power. for country to maintain its independence, particularly if it is next door to a much more powerful nation, it either needs to muster the power itself to maintain its independence on its own or ally itself with others. ukraine is outside the scope of nato. we talked about poland earlier. poland is not. in the cold war, nato established the balance of power that, for decades, drew the line at the berlin wall. now the line has moved east into eastern europe. i don't think the united states has the means or interest perhaps the means, to use our power to establish a balance of power that protect the sovereignty of the ukraine from russia. ukraine needs to develop an

ability to protect its own sovereignty. to the degree the united states can help, we should, but there are real limits to that. host: you are a graduate of princeton. that's what i want to bring up this piece. "getting into the ivs -- ivies." one of the stories this past week, 95% of stanford applicants were denied admission. they accept only at 5%. guest: it is mathematics. it is very hard to get into the schools. i'm very grateful i got into princeton and was able to go there. it was a great education, great professors. i met life on friends. it is a wonderful school. unlike some of those other ivy league schools, princeton is focused on educating undergraduates. i prized the ability to sit in

-- you might be in a room the size, an office with someone who is a fantastic scholar, a great scholar, and be able to talk about things you read with that person. it is unfortunate there isn't more opportunity. but there are a lot of other great universities that are not ivy league universities, that aren't stanford. another problem we have in the united states these days is the inordinate cost of college. schools are incredibly expensive. they have huge endowments. they are able to decrease the costs for a lot of students on a financial aid basis, but we are getting to the point where it is going to be almost impossible for a middle-class family to send their kid to college. it is really getting absurd. i think we need to look in this country is how we reduce the cost of college and how we make it possible for kids who don't get into an ivy league school and don't have the money to pay

$50,000 a year to go to college to nonetheless get a good college education. host: you can follow terry jeffrey on twitter. he is the editor of cnsnews.com. darlene is joining us from st. paul minnesota. caller: good morning. i'm not sure if i heard you correctly earlier, winning the funding of obamacare on the republicans, but if i did i think we all remember that the republicans were trying to hold back funding on obamacare and they were blasted by the democrats and really had no choice. they were flagged as obstructionist and not cooperating with the president and so forth. host: is that what you meant? guest: they did fund it. it is a function of the facts of

both houses of congress passed legislation that allows them to do it. they can give any explanation for why they funded it, but they did. they allowed -- at some point during the discussion of the continuing resolution that was going to fund the government at the end of this last fiscal year , there was legislation that was put up by the republicans that would have rolled it back, but they didn't do that. they didn't even debate it. today in america, hobby lobby they've had to go to the supreme court to try to get the court to protect their ridges -- their religious liberty. you must buy insurance for your employees that covers abortion. that is being funded by both houses of congress. members of congress, regardless

of their party, if they voted for this funding bill, they voted to allow the government to implement a regulation that is denying people their first amendment right to free exercise of religion. martin luther king, when he was answering the civil rights movement advocated that principle that is wholly consistent with the catholic church, which is an unjust law is no law at all. you have a duty to obey a just law, you don't have a duty to obey an unjust law. members of congress have a duty to resist unjust laws. along with telling an american that you must pay for insurance that provides abortions in contradiction of your faith is an unjust law. it hasn't gotten nearly as much attention in the press as it should have. many catholic bishops, including the head of the archdiocese for the military, have said of that

particular regulation, this is an unjust law. we cannot, we will not comply with this unjust law. host: let me go back to darlene, who has been patient. do you want to follow up? caller: the senate voted for it as well. i agree with you 100%. i think the entire law should have never passed. i think the entire law is unjust , but i think the republicans were at a point where they were being so blasted by the white house and by the democrats -- the democratic senate as being the obstructionist and so forth i think politically they happened to go along with it -- they had to go along with it. guest: if you're in public office you should defend your principles and do what you think is right. john nader went to the floor the house and talked about this legislation.

he voted for it. his house representatives funded it. they are therefore responsible for it. if you vote for a bill that funds abortion or forces someone to pay for an abortion, you are responsible. you can make any kind of excuse and explained to the public why you did it, but if you did it you are responsible for it. host: final question with regard to the house republican caucus do you think there will be in fighting after the election to determine if not speaker but other house leaders in the congress? guest: i'm sure there will be some because there always is. the question will be how expensive it is and how much of a chance of success there is. host: from the canonization of the vatican to the affordable care act and race relations -- i think we've covered it all. terry jeffrey's, -- terry jeffrey, the editor-in-chief of cnsnews.com. you can check out his work on a

number of websites, including townhall.com. thank you for being with us. we will take a short break. and we come back we will turn our attention to the situation along the arabian peninsula. we will check in with philip mudd, the former cia director for counterterrorism. first, a look at the other sunday morning programs, all of which can be heard on c-span radio. nancy calo keeping track of the topics and guests. >> good morning. on today's sunday tv talk shows, some of the topics they will entertain include the president' asia, the situation in ukraine and the middle east, and politics. as always, you can hear rebroadcasts here on c-span radio beginning and any string with nbc's "meet the press." guests include tony blair and bob menendez. abc's "this week," with jeh

johnson and nasa judas -- with jake johnson and senator elizabeth warren. on fox news, indiana governor mike pence, jennifer brack ceo of the 14 foundation, and the national chair of the group by any means necessary. cnn's "state of the union" follows at 3:00 p.m. eastern with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. above it and senator john barrasso of wyoming and democratic senator ben cardin of maryland. then it is "face the nation." democratic senator claire mccaskill and republican senator bob corker. the sunday network tv talk shows are on c-span radio, brought to you as a public service by the networks and c-span. the rebroadcast of the shows

begins at noon he stared with nbc's "meet the press." 1:00 -- 3:00 "state of the union." 4:00 "face the nation." listen to the mall on the radio -- to them all on the radio or go online to c-span.org. >> what we are seeing right now where we are embedding computational capabilities more into our environment, some technologists disagree. i consider the smartphones that we all carry around, 70% of the population of america, to be a trademark example of the internet of things. we are carrying around an extreme the powerful computer in our pocket. it also takes the form of different sensors that exist in

the physical world around us radiofrequency identification readers that we pass underneath when we access easy pass on the new jersey turnpike. it takes the form of weather sensors that are all around us. certainly surveillance and cameras that collect a death answer -- collect data and send it somewhere else. they have embedded computers into our real world. >> on afterwords, patrick tucker on a world that anticipate your every move. online, are big -- book collection -- our book collection. live sunday, may 4, look for our next "in-depth" guest, a former gang member turned author. his work includes "it calls you back." book tv every weekend on c-span

2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is philip mudd, who served as the fbi deputy director on national security and the cia deputy director on counterterrorism. thanks very much for being with us. guest: good morning from on having -- from manhattan. host: airstrikes in yemen killing 40 al qaeda militants in two days. what is happening. -- happening? guest: i think you are seeing a fundamental transition in the war on terror. in 2002, our responsibilities were point targets. individual operational leaders of al qaeda in the western parts of pakistan. what is happened is a transition from the small group to this broader movement of the al qaeda ideology.

what we're seeing with the strikes in yemen is strikes against this larger revolutionary movement that grew out of the small al qaeda group that we were focusing on 13 -- 14 years ago. host: are these drone strikes effective? what is your response? guest: we have to ask ourselves what is the long-term strategy as we transfer from the core al qaeda group am of the architects of 9/11, to the broader groups that may threaten new york or washington or chicago, but are actually in certain groups that are a bigger threat to local governments. when i was in this game in 2002 2004, whether you like it or not, these strikes were extremely effective in eliminating key operational leaders of al qaeda.

as we've killed more leaders how is it worth staying in the game of killing a broader subsection of people who may not be an imminent threat to the united states? host: this shows you the area that has been a target of u.s. drone attacks. i want to ask for a response to comments of michael mccaul with regard to aqap. he said "this is probably the greatest external threat to the homeland itself." would you agree or disagree? guest: it is among the threats from the al qaeda affiliates or like-minded groups we have seen emerge in the last 10 years to 12 years. we've seen them in places like some only a. early on my biggest concern after 9/11 was indonesia. a lot of people died in bali and jakarta. i think the serious threat today is syria. if you're looking for magnets

that attract potential jihadists let me tell you one thing look -- look at what the british security services are saying about the number of kids they are having go to syria fight and then return home. those kids aren't going to yemen. those kids are going to syria because it is the place to go if you are a jihadist in europe or the united states today. i don't discount the problem from yemen, but i would not put it number one. host them a -- host: there was a piece in "having to and post -- in "huffington post." explain what is going on. how are the events in syria directly affecting what is happening in the war on terror? guest guest: this has happened often in the decades that we faced him of the extremist version of

jihad -- that we faced the extremist version of jihad. there are local extremist trying to take out assad -- extremists trying to take out assad. these clashes are great for us. you have jihadist on jihadist, competing ideologies. they are ruthless about killing each other. there is a big disadvantage i worry about in the longer term. when you are facing the kind of extremism we have struggled with the past 10 or 20 years you have to worry about two key characteristics, number one, visionary leadership. you need to focus not only on bashar al-assad, but new york or london or paris. you need visionary leadership among jihadist groups. leaders need enough time and space away from government security forces in syria so they can think about plots against new york or washington.

i think those things are potentially happening in syria. the emergence of a visionary leadership, of a safe haven. that will have an echo effect as people have the space to train kids to go back to yemen or paris or london or new york. host: daniel wagner is the author of the book. there is a piece online at huffingtonpost.com. he says -- "the geopolitical ramifications of the conflict and its direct impact on yemen have compelled many yemenis to abandon neutrality on the subject. indeed the syrian crisis has served to highlight yemen's deep ongoing political and religious divisions." guest: i think there is some truth to that. we forget about this in the united states. we have an inability to

understand the world as it appears from the eyes of our allies and adversaries. when you are looking at pakistan, we hammer the pakistanis too often. we forget they were engaged in a civil war as -- three times as bloody as our civil war. you many's are going to a new jihad in places like syria -- you many's -- yemenis are going to a new jihad in places like syria. we have to realize that we are on the side of a government that has got to go after its own people with tactics that, when you look at the world through the eyes of a jihadist, those tactics are brutal and deadly against the yemeni people. this war is going on a long time. the syrian conflict will plan -- fan the war in yemen. we will be on the side of the yemeni government as it fights his own people.

host: this video got a lot of attention this past week. many wondering what this is all about. what is your explanation? guest: a couple of things going on. if you are a visionary leader of a jihadist grouping yemen, one of the things you want to do is to tell the local extremists look, we've been under a lot of pressure from the government but we are here to stay. the americans are after us, but we are not going to back down. this is a video about ideology and recruitment for local yemenis who might see the government security operations against the extremists and say hey, the extremists are under a lot of pressure. we are in it for the long haul. we will prevail. the second thing that is significant, by visionary leadership, what i mentioned earlier these are leaders who persuade some idiot in a trench that his vision of going after a

local police station or government official is too small . the vision has to extend to the west. the vision has to extend from the perspective of the visionary leader to sitters in america -- to cities in america. you saw the reference to the cross. that is a way to raise the horizons of local extremists and say we have a bigger fight. that is going after the west, represented again by the cross. host: how is the west doing? guest: i think we are doing ok, better than i might have anticipated 14 years ago. the west, including washington, d.c., the western perspective on time is short. it differs from the perspectives on time of the extremists that i dealt with. and i was at cia handling -- talking to the people who handle our detainees in the now renowned cia black sites, when those in charters -- when those interrogators came back to

washington, they said they saw perseverance, belief, and brains . what we are seeing in places like yemen and syria is that they believe what they are doing not only represents right, but religion. if you are trying to take out a religious cancer that is represented by people who believe that killing innocents is acceptable, you better be in it for the long haul. these guys think in terms of decades or centuries. they think in terms of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. if we loose sight of the ball, or even if we've made great gains, -- host: here is a portion from monday's news briefing. [video clip] >> let me answer that in a couple of ways. i can't speak to specific operations, as you know, but we have a strong collaborative relationship with the yemeni government and work together on a very -- on various initiatives to counter the threat we face

from aqap. we support the yemeni government's efforts to tackle terrorism within their own borders. beyond that, i would refer you to the yemeni government. without speaking about specific operations, i can tell you that in may, 2013 president obama spoke at length for the policy and rationale of how the united states takes direct action against al qaeda and its associated portions outside of areas of active hostilities including with drone strikes. as the president made clear, we take it for neri effort to make -- we take extraordinary effort to make sure our counterterrorism actions are in accordance with international law and with -- host: we are joined by philip mudd. let me go back to jay carney's, and. why yemen -- jay carney's comment.

why yemen? guest: there are very few places where you see the constellation of events and circumstances that we get in yemen. the first is the history of the yemeni extremist trying to target the west. you remember the attempt over detroit a few years ago, the attempt with the toner cartridges trying to take down cartridge aircraft -- cargo aircraft. you have an inability of the government the yemeni government, despite what they're trying to do today, and they have been aggressive to project power. you have safe haven for extremists, a lot of support for extremism within the country. the al qaeda movement is quite large in yemen. and you have leadership that has the vision to say we not only want to topple the you many government. our vision ashley yemeni government -- toppled again many government -- topple the you manyyemeni government.

host: let me ask you about one suspect that might have been killed, who was believed to be responsible for the bombing you just alluded to, the specter -- the suspected underwear bombing. was he one of the targets? was he killed? guest: i suspect he was one of the targets. i don't know whether he was killed. it takes a while to confirm these kinds of issues. the first way you're going to confirm it is dna. in a site like that, it is hard to confirm dna. a kinetic strike will destroy dna. you will hear jihad he -- jihadist chatter. it is hard to decipher that chatter over time to figure out what is fact and fiction. if we are depending on intelligence channels where they

speak about who died and who didn't, some of them won't know. it might take weeks or longer. i suspect he was a target, but i'm not sure we will know very soon. host: a graduate of villanova and university of -- he served as a cia deputy director of counterterrorism. he is currently the director of global risk at southern sun asset management in tennessee. before we get to calls and comments, i want to ask about two other statements -- guest: i can't believe you're asking me this. the mudd family is quite large in the united states, despite the fact that you only often hear people say my name is mud. i come from the largest land should -- largest branch of the family. i'm a direct descendent of dr.

samuel mudd. he was convicted of conspiracy in the lincoln assassination because he set the leg of john wilkes booth. one funny story. when i was going through the security clearance process for the cia, i had to go through a polygraph. as a dumb 24-year-old, i walked into the room thinking i would try to joke with the polygrapher. i told her this ought to be an amusing polygraph because i come from a family of convicted felons. let me tell you something. polygraphers do not have a sense of humor. i spent the next 20 minutes digging myself out of that hole. host: we will turn back to the more immediate issues. thank's for that background -- for that background. caller: good morning.

as far as al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, i'm not as aware of the yemen could -- pos ition. but in reference to syria, it seems to me from what i've seen and read that it is by far the most covert war ever documented from both sides of the battles. it seems that the free syrian army has taken a leg up and is really pushing out the al qaeda extremists in trying to root out some of these problems. guest: i think the free syrian army has had a hard time with jihadists and extremist. i think they have a pretty strong foothold in syria. the problem in the old world is really simple. i'm not saying that the free syrian army has succeeded in pushing out jihadists, but if

they had had some success, in the world i lived in, if you have five successful recruitments of kids from places like london or france or spain or italy or the united states, five, the chance that one of those kids gets through and explodes a device in someplace like times square -- that is a chance you cannot take. the problem i saw at the table. i sat at the threat table for 10 years. we met every day at the cia and the fbi. if one of those kids get through, you fail. you can have some success against the extremists in syria. i think the extremists are doing quite well. even if you do succeed, you live in a world or i did, where that small sliver of extremists who remain can have a devastating effect on a major american city. that's why the counterterrorism business is so hard. every kid you miscounts.

-- every kid you miss counts. host: good morning. caller: i appreciate everything that mr. mudd is saying. i can't help but have an overwhelming feeling that you guys are missing the boat on a way to neutralize the anger out there. i think it is not right to continue the war on terror with excessive militarism. i think that you guys are not using the assets of the environmental movement to increase the quality of life in other countries. people are angry for multiple reasons. i understand some of it. my background is macedonian. we had violence in our family's life in europe. my family moved here. i understand the emotion of

having family members killed and the grudge that can continue on through generations, but i think that grudge and that anger goes down as the generations continue to grow and become adults and have their own children. but there are major problems in the world and one of them is environmental issues that every person can relate to no matter what country they are in are how old they are. host: thanks very much to the call -- for the call. let me turn back to the issue of aqap. "many yemenis and pakistanis argue drone strikes are helping terrorist recruitment." guest: i don't agree. how do we transition from the hot war that had troops deployed

and killing dozens of people to figure out how we are going to prosecute the war when we face imminent threat, but also how we draw back in a way that is less aggressive? i don't oppose drone strikes. i think we are in a transitional phase of u.s. foreign policy where we are going to start to see less of the strikes because the u.s. will be out of places like afghanistan. let me be clear. the choices that i saw were not as subtle as the choices that i hear from americans when i go out and speak and take callers on shows like yours. and you are dealing with someone that you can see on the ground -- when you are dealing with someone that you can see on the ground that is pursuing the training of a cell to kill innocents in a city in the united states, you have a binary choice that doesn't typically involve capturing that person. you don't have the capacity to put someone in the tribal area of pakistan without a great potential that you are going to

lose your guys. the choice is do i try to disrupt the plot by killing the plotters and potentially killing bystanders or do i let the plot proceed. if you don't want to make that choice, get out of the game. it is not easy. i see the implications for how we create anti-u.s. sentiment over time. but the choice is go or no go. that is it. host: this is going back to the "economist piece." -- the "economist" piece. it says the u.s. has launched 11 drone strikes since the start of the year. many question whether they are actually helping to eliminate aqap. how do you respond to that? guest: i think there is no question they are eliminating aqap. the question we should be asking is have we eliminated a substantial enough portion of the organization so that the

threat to u.s. cities has receded. as we pull out of hot zones especially in afghanistan, i think the number of drone strikes will decline. i think we are winning the war against al qaeda. i think we've been more successful than we've ever anticipated -- then we had anticipated -- i think we have been more successful than we would ever have anticipated on september 12 2001. i hear people say that these strikes are counterproductive these strikes have destroyed the u.s. image overseas. i think that is a debate we ought to be having. but we are having that debate because we've succeeded in the war on terror partly because we've effectively targeted and killed i keep -- killed al qaeda

leaders. it is bloody. it is war. it has been effective. host: our guest is philip mudd, who served as former deputy director of the cia and fbi. there was this tweet, "what percentage of weapons in the hands of aqap come from the u.s.?" guest: i don't know the answer to that. i suspect quite a few. the different -- the distribution of weapons among the you many -- the yemeni populace is among the highest in the world. i don't think it is a critical problem in the war on terror. i know that is a remarkable statement. the new look at the characteristics of the threat i witnessed -- when you look at the characteristics of the threat i witnessed, in the fbi we met with director mueller in the morning. you go through thousands of threats. that is money, recruits, false

documents facilitation, how you get people inside and outside countries, weapons and explosives. we should be fighting to prevent the proliferation of some of those issues. there are two things that count. does an organization have a stable enough leadership that it is a terror organization where that leadership can plan over the course of months and years sophisticated operations against the west? you cannot plan those operations with chump change leadership. number two, do those leaders have the time and space to plot? are they running away from drone missiles or from yemeni security forces? many of these operations are effective because it creates enough destabilization in yemen so that leaders can sit around the campfire with some sense of ease and thought something against london or new york. host: andrew from chicago. with philip mudd joining us from new york city.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i would just like to say that many games are taking to and individual -- to these ideologies. they recruit the youth and destroy their morality and ethics. the boston bombing could be an example. i was just wondering how there can be a successful fight against homeland threats without locking people up -- without only locking people up and releasing them with more anger question mark just -- anger? guest: i don't think islam is a major motivator in gangs in america. i've seen a transition in the al qaeda war from people who believe they are representing islam to kids in the united states and europe who present themselves, whether they are in a gang war in an islamist extremist group, who present themselves as believers in the al qaeda ideology. most of them did not know what

they were talking about. the original guys did. the kids today don't. gangs are threat to our cities. i think new york is much safer than it was 20 years ago, but i still fear for safety in new york and nighttime. if you look at statistics of how major police departments in the united states have effectively stunted violent crime in america , the statistics tell you a remarkable story. violent crime, despite the rise of regional and national gangs in america, violent crime is in a steep decline. murders, homicides other violent crimes, steep decline. we can worry about that and the potential spread of islamic ideology to gangs in america but we ought to be looking at the numbers, which tell us we are doing ok. host: you worked at various capacities in the cia before and after 9/11. there were complaints that there were silos put in place between the intelligence community, not

sharing information that many suspect led to the events of 9/11. how are we doing today? how is the department of homeland security gathering that information? how would you assess the current state of events? guest: my view is a significant difference before and after 9/11. we made a lot of mistakes. when you are sitting in the chair and you have a hot piece of information that is highly sensitive about a threat to a u.s. city, pre-9/11, you might have worried more about protecting that information. whether you want to or not post-911 -- post-9/11, no one is going to sit on that information. if you sat on that information because it was too sensitive you will get your ass handed to you. i think we instantly recognized there is no value in sitting on sensitive information, even if it might be compromised. that said, i think americans

have to understand something about security in the united states. we live according to the lanced -- to the constitution in the land of the free and the home of the brave. we do not land -- live in the land of the secure. people worry about the surveillance, worry about what edward snowden said. when i watch how we conducted investigations at the fbi, we conduct investigations in a free society. every american has rights to when you live in a free society, people occasionally, like the tsarnaev brothers in boston, are going to succeed. we are never going to prevent that, regardless of how much money we throw at homeland security, regardless of how much information we share. frankly, i wish politicians would stand up a few more times and say if we still want to live in the land of the free, we've got to make a sacrifice. that occasionally people are going to die because we are not going to follow everybody. host: is it working the way it was intended? guest: i don't think so.

i think people had the opportunity to turn back the clock -- and this is an open secret in washington d.c. i was slotted to go over to dhs at one point. i think people look back and say it is too much under one roof. you cannot do everything, from things like cyber security in chicago, illinois, to coast guard and interdicting drugs in mexico. it is a span of control that doesn't make sense. i don't think, looking retrospectively, people would have created this entity. once you create an entity in washington, d.c., it takes on a life of its own. i don't think anyone has a will to say we made a mistake. we have to figure out which pieces should be separated and which pieces ought to be under the same roof. i don't think it works that way. i think the vision was flawed from the start. i think a lot of people in washington know it.

host: was in that one of the problems pre-9/11? you had nobody sharing information. one of the benefits, some would say, is you have this now in one department with one secretary. guest: i suppose that is a benefit in theory. let me give you something based on experience in line management at the cia and fbi. if you cannot as a manager articulate your vision for an organization in one or two death sentences, you're going to have a problem with your workforce -- in one or two sentences you're going to have a problem with your workforce. when you look at the cyber investigations dhs does, the partnership they have with industry, with the mexicans, the cartels, the police chief's -- if you want to tell me we can sit here and articulate a clear vision to the workforce and the american people in one or two sentences so that you can translate that vision into a clear, strategic plan, i don't

believe it. show me the money. i don't see it. you cannot articulate the vision that clearly for that and the as it exists today because it is too much under one roof. it works in theory. when you have to manage that beast, i think it is a beast you cannot ride. it is too tough. it is about king bronco -- it is a bucking bronco. alabama good morning. thank you for taking my call. -- caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. our family will never forget the bush administration costs initial -- the bush administration's initial refusal to investigate 9/11. family members are extremely disappointed and disgusted with the 9/11 commission's report and now support the re-think 9/11 campaign. my question is how can

government denials be regarded as credible, especially when 2000 professional architects and engineers have demonstrated that building seven in the twin towers met little to no resistance as they fell and the twin towers pulverized into dust . host: your thoughts? guest: is this is is destined -- is this a suggestion that there was some kind of conspiracy that we are not aware of? i respect the family members of the victims. i didn't realize how much this would live with me forever. i've talked to my friends about this. i have signed papers that send people to cia prisons. i'm not saying i could experience what the families experienced, but i lived this war.

this is absurd. 19 hijackers killed nearly 3000 people in a mindless game to say that the killing of innocents in america is the appropriate way to represent an ideology. and we after 9/11, relentlessly pursued this adversary. we captured him and we killed him. if you want to go back to that incident and suggest to me there is some magical conspiracy in the u.s. government, that we magically were able to conceal what every other thing i saw that was secret, has come out on the front pages of the new york times and the washington post, i say i respect the families. but these conspiracy theories are nonsense. furthermore, i never saw something in terms of secrets high-end secrets that i dealt with that was not revealed to the american people, either because we revealed it or some leaker did.

host: philip mudd in new york city. caller: i would like to talk a third way. you said it was go or no go. it seemed like the cia knows everything about everybody. you knew that tsarnaev brothers were in chechnya. the international security agencies know who is going to these countries. why can't we stop them from coming back? guest: let me give you a contrast. periodically americans -- think of it as an iceberg. see the tip of the iceberg as a plot. we've seen plots in texas succeed. the tragedy of major net office on -- major nidal hasan. you take the plot and build it out and say it looks like the elements are so evident that all

these super security agencies, cia, and ei, nsa, why can't you see that -- cia, fbi, nsa, why can't you see that? we were dealing with a triage of plots. all of them have pieces of puzzles that are unclear. none of those puzzles make sense. you are taking a triage, a flood of data on 10, 50 100 plots at once. you're stopping 99.5% of those plots based on data that don't match up. periodically, one of those plots gets to the tip of the iceberg and that is what the american people see and say, hey, if that is all that is going on, how did you miss it? i lived in a world of massive information. he never provided more than a fringe of a puzzle. how have we remarkably prevented so many plots despite the

tragedy that has succeeded when we've faced 14 years of war? i think the success is the plots we prevented over those years. host: some of those plots forded by the drone technology of the u.s. government and military. -- plots fordedthwarted by the drone technology of the u.s. government and military. caller: i understand 9/11 was perpetrated by a bunch of guys with hot -- with box cutters who were able to get into the cockpit because there was no secure door and able to get onto the planes because the government dropped the ball in terms of tracking them. as i understand it, a significant amount of these guys' training was in the united states, not in afghanistan taking flying lessons, communicating with each other. what's my point? this could have easily been prevented by taking some commonsense measures in

terms of airline security and people talking to each other. host: philip mudd, your response? guest: you could have had an attack on a port or a train. we did have an attack on a plane. you could have a car bomb in new york city or topeka. we are taking this isolated incident and saying the pieces were there laid out. why didn't you prevent it? the problem is bigger than a simple resolution that says you guys dropped the ball. i've heard this a thousand times. the problem was bigger than these hindsight recollections make it. here was the problem. there was a war going on before 9/11. this war was conducted by a core of people at the center of al qaeda, headed by osama bin laden . if that war was -- that war was metastasizing around the world indonesia, malaysia, somalia north africa, and into american

cities. if you want to galvanize the u.s. government to fight a war sometimes, like it or not, it takes a catastrophic event to turn that ship. there was a war going on that we couldn't confront because of the global magnitude. i think the tragedy is that it took 9/11 for us to open our eyes and say it wasn't just planes or box cutters. it is a cancer that has spread around the world and it will take decades to eviscerate that cancer. host: let's bring it back to aqap. who is currently in charge? guest: a guy who has been nominated or directed to be the deputy of al qaeda. he is an effective leader. it takes really visionary leadership to take a low-level terrorist organization and raise its horizon so it becomes a global threat. he has been in place for a while. there are badlands of the yemen -- of yemen that are

indisputable -- that are indisputable -- that are inhospitable. you have that lethal combination of leadership and safe haven. he is at the top of leaders that have threatened america over the past several years. that said, this is a long war. americans don't have long-time perspectives. when i was fighting the war i never saw a jihadist leader who didn't go down. he is a good leader and a visionary, but based on what he's doing, he will also die. host: what worries you the most? what is your biggest concern with regard to this organization and its threat to the u.s. and europe? guest: what worries me is we don't face a strategic threat that we can target. al qaeda was a centralized target we could train our sights on in one geographic space.

we don't face a group anymore. we face an ideology and a revolution. that revolution is in molly algeria -- mali, algeria, syria yemen. i worry about if this ideology isn't stamped out, if it doesn't fall of its own accord over the course of time, more people will die in american cities, and they won't die from al qaeda. they will die from people who believe in the ideology. host: our guest is a veteran of the fbi, philip mudd, joining us in new york on this sunday. we appreciate you being with us. guest: my pleasure, thank you. host: we will continue the conversation, as we do every day . it is a back to work week for congress. the president returns late tuesday. we will talk about the week ahead in congress. frank buckley, the author of a book, "the once and future king

-- the rise and fall of crown government," will look at presidential government. we hope you follow us on twitter, @cspan. newsmakers -- "newsmakers" is coming up next. we appreciate you being with us. enjoy the rest of your weekend. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up next, "newsmakers" when tom stier. then chris christie talking about the states retiree obligations. then ruth bader ginsburg taking part in a discussion about female judicial leaders.

>> joining us from claremont california on "newsmakers" is the president and founder of nexgen simon. thank you for being with us. joining us with the questioning from politico and john sullivan from the washington post. let me begin with a broad issue of climate change and global warming. are we experiencing that today in the u.s. and around the world? >> we are. there is no doubt that the climate is changing and has been changing for a number of years. you can see it both in the measurements that they have been taking rigorously over the last number decades and also in the increasing number of events that are taking place largely in