up. i was impressed with the union members. then i realize, why didn't everybody stand up? the labor movement has opened its doors wide. join working america, joined fast food forward, the fight 15, join our walmart. everybody can be part of the labor movement, part of the union. have a't just have to card that says whatever, communication workers of america. you can be part of the labor movement. that is it. [applause] elce? solutions of the crisis of joblessness and rising economic inequality are very complicated.

polls show they continue to show that an overwhelming majority support a hike in minimum wage. withle is leading the way the recent decision to raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2020. organizer and labor activist, what do you think is driving the growing support for raising the minimum wage? what is the opposition? how can it be countered? especially in the senate? >> good evening comrades. my name is elce redmann. i'm glad to be here. i want to answer that question with a brief story. my grandfather was in the brotherhood of sleeping quarters union. [applause] he spent 12 years trying to organize a union there.

i was the things, when young, he would tell stories about the massive dehumanization happening within that industry itself. three things they were fighting for. they were fighting for living wages. they were fighting for dignity. they were fighting for respect. during the early part of 20th century, you had the big moguls. you hadpullman, jpmorgan, you had the vanderbilt. you have the carnegie use, you had the rockefellers come a you had the kennedys. now we are seeing we don't have those individuals. we have these multinational corporations. jpmorgan has been replaced by walmart. the carnegie's have been replaced by yum! brands. the rockefellers have been

replaced by amazon. the kennedys have been replaced by disney. you have these multinational corporations doing the same thing that these robber barons did in the early part of the 20th century. they don't want to pay workers living wages. it only to give workers any dignity. they don't want to give workers any respect. they don't want to recognize a union. what we do now in the 21st century is what our brothers and sisters from the fight for 15, walmart isor our doing. mobilizing, not only on a local and national and international scale. looking at the issues of inequality, and how the 1% are controlling 99% of our economy.

with all of this going on people are rising up. workers from all over the world are rising against this massive inequality. noworganizing we're doing is making a difference. the it is affecting congress, and the senate. what we need to do is to mobilize even more to attack these issues. the issues of inequality, the issues of poverty, issues of racism. the issues of dehumanization that are happening within these were forces have all been exposed. now what we need to do is mobilize the workers, the community, labor, and faith ammunity to mobilize on archer scale. unfortunately one of the worst issues is the massive unemployment that exist in our country itself, and how it affects african-americans and latinos and our society.

we are fighting for wages, but we need to be fighting for jobs, and pushing for a national jobs program that put people back to work rebuilding. [applause] >> rasheen, michael, and terry. the struggle for the rights of fast food workers went global with the day of action. from the u.k. to brazil, to india, to germany, to japan, they took it to the streets. you have to love facebook. postingriends in tokyo pictures of people going into the streets and protesting outside of mcdonald's. what is the significance of going global? what do you think will be the

outcome of fast food workers connecting globally? what do you think is going to happen? >> let me just say, i had the opportunity to meet workers or mother countries. i don't know if you know, but atkers in denmark are making mcdonald's, guess how much? anybody guess? phone number out there. you know. facebook. the power of facebook. are making $21 an hour at mcdonald's. they have a union. ah.t this -- ye

[applause] by ask only global, it is showing that the workers in america are sick and tired of being sick and tired. the workers on the other side of the world wonder what is going on. how are you not working for this amount of money? and don't give them no type of benefits, don't give us nothing. the workers and the other side of the world are concerned. it is only right for them to stand up and help us win this victory. all of us are in this together. corporations we are not giving up, we are going to get bigger and bigger. it is only been two years. we are already global. what is next? everybody will shut it down. pretty much, that is what is

going to prove that we are not going to be stopped until we get what we deserve, and what we demand. [applause] >> basically, the struggle, this is a global movement. the labor movement. labor has to be international. capitalism is international. can move to one another, labor has to have solidarity from one country to another. [applause] in unity, that is where our strength is. a united movement. if we don't want to challenge , goodstem individually

luck with that. we have seen i on a global scale. the inevitable outcome is workers taking control of things. this is about workers demanding more rights. inevitably it has to lead to workers getting to a point where they can learn that not just that we have more rights, but they can't be taken back because they are nobody else's to be taken back. they are our rights. [applause] why the fight for 15 is important. it has to be for a union. if we get this team, tomorrow they could take it away without a union. [applause] we can't have them taken away.

>> united we stand, supper we fall. know thateresting to we are the super country, we are the country of one. but australia and denmark are paying their workers more money. this is america. where did that happen at? how does that work out? i think that people of these other countries are standing up with us because they know what it is to make a minimum wage. they know what it is to not have to worry or struggle. they know what it is to have a union. it is great we can have solidarity and stand with workers who don't have that. it is kind of strange that these workers living in these other countries are making more money, and don't have the same privileges and resources, but they are standing at the same company telling them if you can do it over there, why are you

doing in the usa? is strong. to have them have arbat, another ,ountry standing with america this is definitely something that is going to be in history books. kids are going to be reading on it. [applause] >> two things came to mind. one was, the power of social media. narrative,field the and when people over. and in incredible organizing tool. people are posting photos to facebook and twitter, in real time. during this strike.

get the issue on the large media in terms of network and all of that. but, then it expands people's horizons. is delegation,e and you find out about how workers are being treated in other countries. organizing and reaching out is happening in a lot of different sectors. the steelworkers, mexican fieldworkers. these international solidarity campaigns going on. nissan workers in the south, in mississippi, getting support from the south african workers or their organizing campaigns.

kind of thing is incredibly important. it expands minds. is at a point where we are going to be able to tip the balance of forces? no. and it is getting there. there's going to be a lot of things people have to confront, peace,eals of war, and and being number one. this idea of america being number one. a lot of things get involved into it. >> thank you. in our country we have a long history of a lack of racial equity. a racial equity gap.

tell us what you think the impact of the fight for 15, the support for walmart workers is , inening on racial unity the labor unit and in our community? >> these campaigns address both the issues of race and class, and gender. the is important now in 21st century. to really have campaigns that connect people on a global basis. if you look around the world, there are people of color making minimum wages. there are people of color working to dehumanize a situation. there are people of color standing up with others across our communities, fighting together on these issues because the central issue is wages, dignity, respect. linesissues cross racial

come and bring people together from all across the country, all across the world. if you look at the fight for 15 the domino amount of workers are workers of color. they are also women, heads of households trying to support their families. few whitesuite a also living in the same conditions. these campaigns have brought all of these groups together. it has unified them against one common enemy. the enemy is big capital, ,egardless of walmart, amazon or disney. it has brought people together. we understand one important thing. this is a global fight.

we are fighting against global capital. african-americans, whites, -- we aremen, gays fighting this fight together. that is one unifying factor. you see it all over the world. you see our brothers and sisters in brazil standing up against global capital, destroying their communities for these games. this is going on around the world. as someone mentioned about social media and how it has brought us together. we can tell our stories. that is what is really important. as we look at the issues of race and class, and we fight these issues together, against a common enemy, we need to know who our common enemy is. [applause] >> thank you.

ok. last question. what is the response by the labor movement to the rising up low-wage workers? what significance does it have for the future of the labor movement? >> most people in the labor movement have been in it before. they've looked at the fast food workers like this is what is next in labor movement. this is what is going to get him a lot of the old people off their butts and moving. [applause] that people have been trying to organize fast food for a while. for a finally to be happening and have changes coming, cities eventually getting 15, we still

want that union. it is something the labor movement, is this a new style of organizing? is this the new group of people that we need to be tapping into? the outcome is that everyone can be organized. it is a matter who you are or who you work for. everyone can be organize. everyone should have a union. seeing fast food workers, a group of people that they say are just young and dumb, and don't have a degree, and many of us have degrees. to see them standing up against mcdonald's, we're are talking about mickey d's with all these ads on tv, these crazy things to get people to buy their food. these are big brands. these are billion dollar companies. to stand up against them is like young people doing this. it is possible. this is the turning point in the labor force.

[applause] >> i probably shouldn't say anything. that was what i was going to say. i was trying this out. i don't usually talk in this language. but it is done my thing less than reignite the moral authority of the labor movement in the united states, which was lost with the red scare. hunts,i-communist witch inauguration of business unionism. i'm going to be negative for a minute. those of you who know me, i've been in the labor movement for a long time. our members are infected by an ideology, it is not easy. this provides an opportunity. we now opportunity to fight

racism in every single union because they have to recognize this fight. this fight is expressing something very important. example, there's a union in minnesota. in his local, people are very militant. if they can do that, when we march on the boss? they discuss and militancy, they never had. it is making people think differently. finally, i think it is , 99% thing in a concrete way that expresses class. people understand it. it is taking it out of an abstract >> i think it has put class on

the agenda and it is fantastic. [applause] >> thank you, howard. my grandma always told me that you never get the last word. she was talking about family fighting, fighting with your spouse, but not at the people's world working for a living new challenge panel. they are all going to get a last word. we will start with you. tell us something we don't know about you. tell us something you want us to do when we leave here tonight. >> um, something you don't know about me. oh, maybe this might be good. campaign, atd this first i was excited, but maybe a few weeks later i started being an organizer with phone calls.

people might be thinking, oh well, i understand. when i was excited about what was going on, i went back to my family because i really didn't know what a union was. i always heard about it, i heard my friends who were in construction say you get benefits and more money and sick days. i thought that sounds good. i better find me a job with the union. know the whole background of what it actually means and how much power as union has. . went back to my grandmother you know, grandma, she raised me to a certain point. stuff grandma about this in the workplace. i asked her what she thought

about us having a union. my grandmother told me no, don't because you do it might lose your job or i don't think you should be doing this. my grandmother worked at the u.s. post office. i was like, wait, you are in a union. i don't get it. by this.fused whatever grandmother says, i'm going to do. i won't mess with the money. but then something told me, no, --s sounds too good to not to just easily walk away and not get more information. who works for verizon. they have a union. she said union is the only way to go. you have to do it third you must fight. i believe you all do deserve a union.

something clicked in me. somebody has to break the ice. i'm going to try it. i don't care. if i get fired, i'm going to get fired and at least i know that i tried. [applause] that i neededhing to tell you guys. i hope you like that story. one thing i would tell you to do when you leave here tonight is to support us and support all of us. it is not about low wage workers, it is about your city, your community, your state and your country. whatever it is that is out there, just keep fighting, because without you guys, i don't think i would have kept fighting. just keep supporting everybody. [applause]

>> i also have family members that are 100% -- that aren't 100% supportive of struggles i have tried to help out with. conservative, because i live in texas and that is the thing there. [laughter] the thing is, though, with my mom, in a weird way, even though she is very republican and --ches fox news all the time mom. [applause] way, she really inspired me to get involved with this.

for all my childhood, i only watched my mom come home from work and she would always be so beaten down about how tough it is working where she does. she is a secretary. she would always come home and would be venting about how her boss treats her like a machine and expects so much from her and she gets less and less money every year. the thing is, i hope everybody can understand from that that even though people disagree and have differences and even be the most backwards reactionary kind of people, at the end of the day, they are still going through the same struggle, the working class, like everybody else. they may not realize it, but whenever they hear the idea that working people have power over

their own lives and having control over the situation, even if they are still trapped in this backward mentality, it really has the power to bring out in them some support. whenever i talked to my mom if i put a communist label on it she is going to lash in general i talk terms about people having control over the workplace and being able to vote on policy in the workplace, she usually just tends to agree with it. she is a conservative, tea party kind of person otherwise, but when i talk about, don't you think people should be able to make some of these decisions and not have somebody make it for them? always people, i really doubt my mom is different than any of these other people. these people will agree with this idea because it is not just

a matter of opinion, it is a matter of the reality of the world we live in. we need a world where people have control over their own lives. [applause] it doesn't matter how backwards they are, anybody can understand that. >> these fights have put race, class and inequality as a part of the national/international narrative. i think that is very important area now, we need to do is have some real concrete victories so people can see that wherever they are, whether it is kfc or at aoes or jimmy john's or local warehouse, that they organize and come together and win. 20 years ago, there was a decline in the power of unions. now, we see that our rising again in the 21st century through these fights.

we need to continue that. [applause] >> i am from buffalo new york, not minnesota. anybody here from buffalo? no? >> buffalo, hey! >> oh, well. i am, anyway. a completely different direction. a pitch for a project i'm involved in. i can't top any of that stuff. i am a media person and as you i think broadly about media. i know you're talking about the people's world and what to do with it. i guess, it sounded like. involved in a project called worksite network. it hasn't happened yet, but we are open to make it happen. imagine labour news on netflix, except not really, you know, right?

available menu-driven universally on any device that can connect to the internet. there will be a menu of programming and probably the flagship thing will be worksite network news, a half-hour news thing. things will be broken up for social media for purposes into small segments. we intend to have it in a place where it will house labor documentaries, which there are still a lot being made, and so on. yet, but iappening am happy you said awesome. i'm just try to get this off the it out.nd and sounding we're trying to get money out of unions. we had some pretty big meetings so far in washington dc about this and with other stuff. i hope someday you will see it. there you have it. [applause]

>> something about me, i love to sing beyoncé. if there is karaoke around here, let me know. most people from st. louis in the back of the room would not know this, but this campaign has really changed me and made me into a real leader. this campaign has given me more power to stand up for myself. i don't think if the fight for 15 and never came around, i still would've been involved, but i don't know how strong i would say myself is. if that makes any sense. it taught me things i did knew -- i did not know, including what it union is. a union can do for

your family, what it can do for your community and your neighborhood. it is really not -- it has not only taught me, but it is taught a lot of other people, especially a lot of color people who can finally say they have stood up for something and themselves. they did not just get walked over and they know what a union is. i really do just appreciate this campaign because it is teaching us also, it is not just having us go out and stand up for ourselves, it is teaching us to teach the next person. that is something i definitely appreciate from it. [applause] >> well, something about myself is that i love to swim. that is one thing. that, but i compete in swimming, so there you go. at this ripe old age.

i just think that the power of stories and what we heard people.moves the format we try to s, tode in people's world create and have that space for people to tell their stories. to do it with i of winning more .eople over to the fight like my family, or like our neighbors may not be familiar with unions. it is a small percentage in our country that is organized. startthink once you scratching that surface, which i think stories help to do, people start to move. that is what we try to do at people's world, win people over .o fighting for racial equality

when people over to fighting for gender equality. try to do, what we tell the stories, but with an eye on broadening and reaching out and pulling more people into the good fight. [applause] >> thank you. unity, we ready for more more organizing, more justice? are we ready? you justice is just showing love in public. so you can show a little love and be a part of the fight to heen's job and make a call tonight. when people start handing these out, we want you to call the manager at jimmy john's.

what is the slogan for jimmy john's? >> freaky fast. >> freaky fast, make the call. i just want to say that we want the viewers who are watching this on the live stream to go to people's world.org, get on people's world.org, read about the struggles, share it with your friends and family. for the viewers of the live stream, we will return tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.. we are sorry to say that you will not be joining us at a reception to honor our panel down at the inner circle on the first floor. good night. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next is a discussion on the efforts to ban same-sex marriages. then we will share the news briefing by the new white house chief of staff howard baker. and then efforts to divide california into six separate states. "newsmakers" senator john

about the upcoming elections, transportation, funding, economy, and iraq. "newsmakers" on c-span. author daniel schulman on the koch brothers. >> there's this massive lawsuit that played out between the koch otherss on one side and on the other side. this is a boardroom showdown. frederick, and other shareholders were eventually trying to stand -- they would have taken a greater role in the direction of the company.

the end result is bill is out of the company a few years later by his brothers. there's is a dramatic moment in the book where the board has to sit down and decide bill's sta te. wichita" on c-span's "q&a." the status ofn on same-sex marriage and whether there will be another challenge in the courts from "washington journal"." this is 40 minutes. host: and thursday marked one year since the supreme court ruled portions of the defense of marriage act unconstitutional. here to discuss the current status of same-sex marriage in the united states is brian brown, president of the national organization for marriage. and sarah warbelow, what is the

most significant development on this issue since a year ago thursday? >> you know, there are many ways which same-sex couple are ecognized. host: the most significant development since a year ago thursday. guest: well, i think it's the total misapplication of the windsor decision by state judges, essentially having judges in the federal courts and state judges decide that their view of marriage is better than the voters and that's the descent of paul kelly noted in the at the present time circuit, judges acting as "philosopher kings" deciding that the people's decision on the matter of marriage is without merit and

that their decision is more important. and then using their power as judges to assert that over the states. host: 18 federal court decisions over the past year against same-sex marriage ban. do you think that at the moment circuit court decision is the most significant, at least? >> well, it's a circuit court decision. it's also important they're split. there was one as i noted. paul kelly's descent was quite important. it was very good. that bodes well for us because if this isn't going to end at appellate courts. this isn't going to owned the circuit court. this is going to the united states supreme court. and we're going to see circuits split and even if we don't see a circuit split, the supreme court is going to take it. that ultimately is where all of these arguments are going to end. it doesn't matter -- i mean, it's never good that judges decide that they get to use their own opinion at the law but it doesn't matter if there were a number of more decisions by

federal court. what matters is what happens at the supreme court. host: before we get to the supreme court, that 10th circuit court decision that receives so much publicity. our thoughts on that decision. guest: 18 federal courts. republican appointed judges, democratic apoint judges. this is a non-partisan issue. increasingly, americans of all backgrounds, of all political and religious beliefs are coming to embrace marriage for same-sex couples. i think we're just seeing where the future is headed. the supreme court will obviously be taking it up and probably much sooner than anyone ever anticipated. and every single decision that occurs at the lower court level just reaffirms that it is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. host: do you think the supreme court is going to wait for

another circuit supreme court decision or do you think they'll take it up from this 10th circuit court decision you say sooner rather than later? guest: it's too early to tell. we're waiting a decision on the fourth quarter -- fourth circuit. it wouldn't come down prior to the october term in which the supreme court would have an opportunity to taking the 10th circuit court decision. there are several other cases teed up in front of the sixth circuit and the seventh circuit. so the court may have quite a few to choose from. host: so brian brown, we were talking about public opinion on this topic. i want to show our viewers a graph of public opinion over time on same-sex marriage, this going back to 2003. the yellow line being those who oppose same-sex marriage. the red line being those who support same-sex marriage. you can see that changing, flipping around 2009, 2010. is public opinion turning

against those who oppose same-sex marriage? >> well, as supports are re defining marriage that somehow, the american people embrace same-sex marriage. if that was true, why are supports avoiding at all costs another referendum? in ohio and in oregon, they refuse to submit signatures for a referendum. why? because if the courts are doing the work for you, why have the voters have their say? so, i think it's ironic that on one hand, there's this claim that somehow, the american public supports same-sex marriage and on the other, there's a refusal to allow the people of each state to decide. those two things don't make a lot of sense. we saw before proposition 8 only 35% of the public in california supported traditional marriage. when the actual vote came, it won by 53%. we've seen time and time again that poll being misrepresents where folks are at. and if you look at the vote, 31

states have voted to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman. only three states have voted to dedefine it. one, north carolina, just voted a little over a year and a half ago to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. host: brian brown is with the national organization for marriage. for folks that don't know of your organization, tell us about it. guest: our organization is supports the faith communities that sustain marriage. host: and sarah warbelow, the human rights campaign. guest: the human rights campaign the nation's largest advocating transgender gay, americans. host: if you have a question or a comment for one of our guests, our phone lines are open. publicans can call at 202, and a special line

or altogether -- lbgt viewers. we will start with charlotte. caller: good morning. my penguins it's your business what you want to be. but my thing is everybody wants to shove it down your throat. not everybody believes it that way and i think people should be allowed their opinion instead of everybody trying they're wrong with their opinion. thank you. host: charlotte, are you still with us? caller: yes. host: on the issue of same-sex marriage, would you support it in tennessee? caller: no. because i believe in it. again, that's my personal opinion. don't shove your opinion down my throat. i don't want to hear it. host: all right. caller: we all have opinions. host: i'll let sarah warbelow

respond. guest: i appreciate that. i know there's a lot of changing opinions and many people are going to hold firm to the opinions that they have and that's ok. what is important is that people have the ability under the law to access the same rights as everyone else. and i know that this has been in the news a lot and it probably feels overwhelming for some individuals to have the significant discussion but i'm hopeful that once the supreme court decides this issue once same-sex and all ouple are going to marry, this will recede in the background. host: this week in indiana, here's the front page of the "indianapolis star"." utah for n out to another front page. the state to appeal for the marriage ruling.

the court ok'ed same-sex marriage descent d.v.d.'s states rights out there. now. go to mississippi george, good morning. caller: yes, sir. how are you doing? host: good, george. go ahead. for : my opinion is that our first president, george washington, and that is all citizens should be treated equally. but there's a standard that we stand on and we're not standing you e standards because if go to the biblical terms on it because all our money, -- on our money, we have in god we trust. and that's what our law is. and on that standard that we got to base our standard in this earth realm just as god did in the heavenly realm enjoug the

fruit of the spirit and also, when you say that, do you say everybody have a right. yet everybody has the right in this earth's realm but there are laws and orders that we should be abounced by and that constitution is the thing that we stand on. host: all right, george. i'll let brian brown jump in. guest: the notion that somehow the supreme court is going to finally end this issue one way or another is fundamentally flawed as the justices themselves have note with the roe v. wade decision, abortion it did not end. in fact, it polarized the country for decades to come. on the issue of the broader issue of people feeling like they can't stand up and state where they believe on this issue, especially supporters of traditional marriage, we've seen one told he was kicked out of

his bed for contributing to proposition 8. we've seen the "duck dynasty" fiasco. we've seen donors harassed, intimidated, death threats. this has gone on at the same time that proponents of same-sex marriage are saying if you redefine marriage, this is a live and let live proposition. nothing will happen to you. this is only about equality. it is not only about that. it's about two different ideas of marriage on the table. and the arguments being put forth in the courts are essentially those of us that believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman are beliefs of hatred and irrationality. you can put that proposition into the law and say there will not be effect of a marriage that is between a man and a marriage. one of the ideas of marriage is going to win out in a law.

either there's a view that? is something unique and special about a husband and a wife or the revision in which husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, it's all irrelevant. it's only about personal fulfillment of the couple that's disconnected with child bearing and child rearing. these are two fundamentally different ideas. people of goo will can disagree on those but if the law embraces on one, it won't affect the other. host: this is from the desiree news showing the state's courts that are ruled in favor of same-sex marriage since the supreme court decision in windsor last year. go ahead. guest: marriages change significantly over time. the idea that we had about marriage once we would never accept now including women being inferior individuals within a relationship. we actually have laws based on those notions that was once part

of our history. we have come to reject those. so marriage changes over time. and what's remained fundamental and a core critical piece is that two individuals come together because they love one another. they want to care for each other, support each other. many of them choose to form families. and they want an environment in which to raise their children. and same-sex couples are looking for the same types of things looking into a marriage that most other couples are looking for as well. there is not one monolith view of marriage. host: chesapeake, virginia, is next. bob is on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. in my opinion, the whole problem , those that -- the definition -- you have the definition of a marriage as a wedlock and intimate union of a husband and a wife, one man and one woman. there is no definition for a same-sex couple. i suggest that there be another

definition, say like a homage. you say a marriage between a man and a woman, a homage between a same-sex couple. each union has its own defined definition and should be allowed to stand on its own merits both legally and morally under the law. marriage for thousands of years has been defined as a union of a man and a woman and should not allow dortch be regind as some other definition. host: bob, would the rights be the same under the two different terms and definitions that you use? caller: that could be perfectly equal, but you're changing the definition of marriage. this should not be allowed. d then, whenever they have a homage in the newspaper or they

send out marriage things or married in the church, then the person knows what they're going to expect. host: brian brown, you're shaking your head on the viewer's call? guest: well, the idea that somehow, peripheral changes to marriage over ons of history have any similarities to the reality that it was only 15 years ago that same-sex marriage was even conceived of in any state, and that the defining characteristic of marriage throughout human history has been the fact that it's based on the distinction between male and female. to somehow say that this change is just like other changes, i just think people won't -- i mean, it's obvious that is not true. this is changing what marriage fundamentally is. and if you talk about the change in the way that was brought up earlier, well, this is about affirming people's rights. this is about affirming the dignity of their relationships,

then you have to ask this simple question. why not three, four, or five people? why is this only about same-sex marriage? why do supporters of same-sex marriage now deny rights to those that want to practice polygamy? because once you change the fundamental truth that marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman, all the other characteristics of marriage are up for grabs. and so i ask -- why not? why not three, four, five? we already have lawsuits using the exact arguments put forward in the lawsuits in many of these states that are trying to claim that there is a right to polygamy in our constitution, which clear is is not there, just as a right to redefine marriage is not in our constitution. host: sarah, do you want to respond? guest: yeah. the issue is a red herring. what we would have to do to accommodate polygamist families as radically different that what

is under the law to accommodate same-sex couples. as we've seen in a numerous state, we have 19 states that allows same-sex couples to marry. it is a simple matter of opening up our marriage codes because same-sex couples resemble opposite sex couples in so many ways, caring for their families, their children. you know, making lifetime fidelity commitments to one another. and and the response of polygamy or other types of multi-partner relationships just don't fit into the structure of marriage in the same way and it's much more complicated issue. guest: i don't think that's the answer to the question why you should not have three, four, five people. you're saying the same thing that you're claiming supporters of traditional marriage are saying. you're saying it's based on a male and a female. why isn't is just that it's based on two? what is the binary structure

that it's based on? the distinction of male and female. if you get rid of that, you have no logical reason to not say why not three, four or five? they're going to claim the same things about rights, privileges, and yaw really done have an answer to them. guest: but we do have a history of polygamy throughout the world. it's something that the united states has rejected but that actually is a part of the world, marriage history and marriage tradition. that doesn't means it's necessarily the right choice here in the united states and something that i assume will continue to be debated. host: back to the callers. eddie is waiting in north carolina on our line for republicans. eddie, good morning. you're on with brian brown and sarah warbelow. caller: when you guys said it is a constitutional right or things like -- that's wrong. there is no constitutional right for straight marriage or gay marriage. but getting to the point where you're using equal rights clause in order to get the same-sex marriage to go through, wouldn't

that be the same thing as challenging the progressive tax code? you're not treating people equally because they make more money than the person that doesn't make any money? so a person that's rich can challenge the court how the code -- saying i'm not being treated equally as someone who doesn't make as much money that i do? guest: well, the way that our jurisprudence written it up -- in order to attain the highest degree of scrutiny, the closest look that the court's going to take on a particular issue. one of the things that we ask is that your situation is something that can't change. and we know that people's economic status does shift and change over time. it can be hard to change economic status. but it is different than an individual's sexual orientation, which is something that we're learning more and more about, but all of the evidence begins to suggest is something that you

can't change about yourself. host: and brian brown, you mentioned the idea of a referendum earlier. here's a tweet from tattered rainbow. civil rights should never go to referendum. only the craziest votes normal people say home because it's not their concern. do you want to respond to that? guest: i think it shows the loathing for american democratic processes that we've seen time and time again. you're begging the question. if i believe there was a civil rights to same-sex marriage, i would support it. so it's begging the question to just make a claim that there's a civil rights to same-sex marriage and there is not a civil rights to redefine marriage. many of the people that are calling in are starting from both reason, religion, wherever it comes from. they're starting from a point where they recognize what should be clear and obvious is that there's a distinction between male and female. there is a distinction between motherhood and fatherhood. there is a difference. so then to claim that somehow, once you accept that difference, that there is a right to

redefine it is simply wrong. there is no right to do that. so, again, the notion that the american people can't be trusted with certain questions and that our elites and philosophers can get to decide these issues for us is fundamentally flawed. and i don't think it's going tend to up winning out at this united states supreme court. host: you've got a special line in this segment of the "washington journal" for lbgt viewers. jerry is calling in from indiana. jerry, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment that people are confusing religion and our government and our laws. this is a separation of church and state. it's the way it should be looked at. it was not a religious issue. it is a legal issue. and i think your panel actually defines that because you have a religious leader and you have someone from a legal group. using religion and they use that as a basis to

argue against it. and our constitution, you know, has the separation of church and state. it's part of our law. host: i'll let sarah warbelow go first. guest: the other piece is there's a plethora of religious views out there. there is a religious group in north carolina, a church, that has mounted a lawsuit against north carolina's law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying because the way the law is written, prohibits them from celebrating those marriages in their own churches. and so, i do think that this is something that's separate from religion. in a large part, because there isn't one single religious view on this issue. host: mr. brown? guest: i'm that pastor or a priest or anything like that. it is true that marriage stands on its own, apart from any particular religious tradition. through natural reason, marriage is by its nature the union of a

man and a woman. what is marriage? by professor robert george and ryan anderson. i recommend it. it's the rational case for marriage but at the same time, because there's a clear rational case for understanding marriage as humanity as understood it and during different cultures, times and places, different religious traditions, that doesn't mean that people of religious faith are somehow barred from entering this discussion merely because they're motivated by their religious faith. so it's a misunderstanding of the separation of church and state and that's why in this country up that's why in this country up until 14 years ago, no one would even conceive that the constitution included same-sex marriage. clearly our founders didn't. in fact, for utah to become a

state, it had to ban polygamy if they wanted to become a state. that's what they did. that's when the union of one man, one woman became clear state law in utah. again, what we're doing is using the courts to put living constitutionism on destroyeds and have judges have the ability to fundamentally change the very nature of american law. >> on this issue of the definition of marriage, "marriage has been redefined many times throughout our history. caller: my question is for ms. warbalo as to why her organization put confidential organization about donors that was illegally leaked by the i.r.s. and illegally obtained. i don't think that is ethical behavior. i was wondering why her

organization felt it promoted their cause by putting such information on their web site. guest: mr. brown's organization has violated laws in maine and other states with regard to the disclosure of donors and we feel it is important that people be aware of that information, and if we are going to have civil discourse in this country that we know who is participating in that particular discourse. guest: that is a good question. as we've seen in the news, the i.r.s. did settle a lawsuit that we launched and we admitted that they disclosed our private list. the human rights campaign doesn't list all of its 501c doe nores, nor do we. on ave never put the list our web site.

i will say after our lawyers contacted the human rights campaign they did take it down because i think they realized it was not only unethical, it was criminal. however, once it's on the web, if it comes out, it is out. i will say, this is a point that all americans should agree on. we shouldn't be intimidating, attacking, and punishing people that stand up for their right to free speech, including donating. one of the reasons we pursued this lawsuit is to affirm that for everyone. plenty of our donars who are happy to be public. some say i don't care who knows, i want them to know. the fact is that people should not have an understanding from the government that they can make a contribution from either a human rights campaign and then have the government take that list and give it to their political appointments. that sounds like something out

of the soviet union, it is not something that we as americans do. nation ian brown is for for america. we have a special line for lbgt viewers. mike is waiting on that line in clearwater, florida. mike? caller: good morning. host: go ahead, mike. guest: i would like mr. brown to know that my partner and i have been living together for 28 years, and we have been paying taxes. marriage equality is important for the younger people, not so much for us. it is an important issue, and you should consider the younger people.

full federal benefits are going to be required for these people. again, not so much for us, but for these younger people. thank you. host: those that support same sex marriage by age according to polling this past year, 18-29-year-olds are the highest age group that support same sex marriage by age. guest: we have a lot of work to do. we have a lot of work to do in a cadameia. this has been 30 years of groups being involved in schools, teaching the ideas that those of us that believe in marriage between the union of a man and a woman are somewhat bigoted. we have a ton of support online, a ton of ewe important from other people and young people who have heard the argsments and are starting to hear our

arguments again. great book, what is marriage? second time i'll bring it up. don't believe the lie that there is only one side to this debate. proponents of same sex marriage have done a good job getting their arguments out there. increasingly there's a tendency -- lence those of us that move sarah? guest: we are also seeing support from older americans as well, and across the board. i think young people are more likely to know people who are gay or lesbian. they are more open than ever before. people have friends, siblings, cousins, neighbors.

it is every, ordinary, gay americans who are part of our families coming out, being open about who they are, introducing their partners to parents, saying, you know, we want to get married. this is what marriage means to us. it is a value that we have. those are the things that are changing. guest: we have about 10 minutes left in our roundtable. let's go to diana on our line for independentents from georgia. caller: i have a quick question to make. voter, i independent am conservative. i have a problem with the term "marriage." it was in the bible. it is the symbol of the wedding band.

have the courts -- the courts have ruled that is a christian term. i have no problem with "civil union." instead of saying, "you have benefits for marriage, you have benefits for civil union." that's all i have to say. it is all about terminology. guest: we have experienced with other terms. there were civil unions as early as 19999. virtually every state felt it fell short. as much as there was an attempt to create equality, it was never true equality. no one grows up and says, i want to be in a civil union. people grow up and say, i want to be married. there is a dignity and respect and understanding that comes along with the terminology. we understand what it means to say that someone is married.

a civil union or partnership is a different term. when you introduce someone as your domestic partner, people ask, are you talking about someone you live with or a business partner? it is for those reasons that these ultimate forms have fally en by the wayside. host: the dark purple states in this map are where same-sex marriage is allowed. the gray states is where same-sex marriage has been hallenged. our next call is from florida. dennis, go ahead. caller: i think everyone with same-sex attraction should be treated with respect. however, science has not determined, in spite of what the media tells us, science has not

determined what gives same-sex attraction. given the choice, i don't think would erosexual parent include home sexual marriage for their child. so if the courts could have an impact on our children wharks rights and obstacle gages does a parent have to protect children from this? i'll hang up and listen to your answer. guest: i think there have been a number of big lies told. one is that we somehow know the -- even gay rights activists have said, we don't have the proof of that. the reason why it is important for groups like human rights campaign to say this is true is it is the basis of a lot of legal challenges.

they want to create an analogy between race and sexual orientation in the law and say mmovable.hangeable, i the fact is, many americans, orthodox jews, evangelicals, believe homosexual activity is wrong. that is just a reality of where we are as a country. same-sex marriage is something that's used -- that used to be a club to blugeon them to tell them their beliefs are somehow harmful simply because they think it is wrong. one can easily hold the idea that we need to affirm the dignity of all human beings and treat everyone with respect and compassion while at the same time not supporting the redefinition of marriage. i actually think that's where the 50 million americans that stood up to protect marriage that's where the overwhelming majority are.

there are extremists in every group on any movement on the side of folks that would break into the family research council ith a bunch of chik-fil-a bags that want to shoot people, but there are also those that want to redefine marriage, and there are some people that say hateful things on the side -- from the other side. i think what we need from both sides of the debate is to state that we will not accept hate threats and personal attacks. i think that includes the sort of claims that the human rights campaign is making about the fact that those of us that believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman are somewhat bigoted or the equivalent of racists. go ahead. guest: i think we completely

free with you. this needs to be a civil discourse. neither of our organizations want to promote that type of behavior. we do not use terminology like bigotry. it is something we have intentionally disavowed. we think it is about changing minds and ideas. it is more about looking at friends and family and saying, you know, i want what's best for my child. i want what's best for my family members. i think if you look at the science thethink is most useful to examine is what happens when there are efforts to change an individual's sexual orientation. when those youngsters are put into programs such as preparative therapy we have decades of research that shows it actually leads to increased

use of suicide ideation, increased use of drugs and alcohol. so the outcomes are really problematic. so regardless of how people end up with the sexual orientation that they have, we know there are sincerely held beliefs and feelings and changing them is incredibly problematic. there is a great deal of research that's been done about the best way parents can support lgbt and it is that support. just telling your child "i love you and accept you" reduces your use of suicide by more than 60%. that's what every parent wants for their child. host: we will try to get to as many of your calls as we can. maddy is on our line for lbgt callers in florida. caller: just a couple quick comments. one, as a transgender female,

right now preop, my driver's license reads female by my birth certificate reads female until i have the operation. there are many transgender females that live full-time in a male role and they can't get married due to the fact that it says marriage between a man and a man. but those people do live full-time as a man. earlier they were talking about q -- ove of how gender- there is evidence of a sac inside the head that contains testosterone inside the brain that calcifies. if someone is living full-time as a woman, why can't they have

the same rights, especially if it has been proven in transgender people? >> i think we are -- the effort to redefine marriage is an effort to redefine what we are as human beings, to do away with the distinction between male and female. and i think the next step is we are whatever we define ourselves as. if i wake up and say i'm a man, i'm a man, if i wake up and say i'm a woman, i'm a woman. right now we are sometimes using surgery to alter people to fit wherever their definition is. i was heartened by the fact that paul mchue had a piece about the fact that johns hopkins no longer does gender reassignment surgery for children, but that is the brave new world we are embarking on where parents are

now buying into this notion that there is nothing substantive or real about being male or female, and actually deciding to surgically change their children with very little -- no input from a child, this is fundamentally transforming what it means to be a human being. and we're forgetting about the rights of children in all of this. we're forgetting about what it means to all of us as far as what our children will be taught in the schools. that's why i think now is as important a time as ever for people to stand up, contact their congressmen, stand up for the truth that we know in our arts that there is something many special about the union -- marriage union.

caller: you guys kind of answered your own questions especially when it comes to the children's part. if you want your rights, you have to give them to your children. when they are born, their rights is completely tablingen from them. do not ask for your own rights if you're not going to give them to your children. that's what i have to say. guest: i think children need to be part of a family. we have children living with same-sex couples. some of those children are biologically related. some of those children are adopted. and allow same-sex couples to marry in the absolute best way to provide for protections for these families and to assure that all children grow up in safe, secure homes that have the full support of the american public and the law, and that

those children then have the recourse to everything that they need to have the proteches that other children are granted. >> a reporters roundtable on the news of the week. discussion on the supreme court ruling with chris adelson, author of a wrenching essential power any rule of law. -- and the rule of law. and of this cached about conditions in honduras and guatemala. live at 7:00urnal, a.m. eastern on c-span. show you the news

briefing by howard baker. draper talksimothy about his efforts to divide california into six separate states. then the supreme court oral arguments challenging utah's ban against same-sex marriage. tv talks with hillary clinton about her newest book, hard choices. >> are learned to expect the unexpected. nobody expected the so-called arab spring until it was upon us. we have to learn to be agile and ready for the unexpected. well we try to build the world we want, especially for our children and now for my future grandchild -- we have to be available -- aware that these other countries, these billions of people, they are making hard

choices every single day. we have to be ready for that. i am absolutely convinced that we have to continue to lead the world into the kind of future that we want. we can't sit on the sidelines. we can work -- we can't retreat. story has become the dominant story. andepresents the hopes aspirations of people everywhere. that is what i want americans to understand. the main reason i wrote this book, i know there's a big debate going on about our role in the world. unfortunate real consequences to deal with from prior decisions and the like. can't abdicate our responsibility. how we define it, how we executed, will be the stuff of political debate. but the world needs us. america matters to the world.

the world matters to america, for our prosperity and security and democracy. >> hillary clinton spoke with us about her decision-making process. perceptions of the united states around the world. and some of the decision she had to make as secretary of state. the full interview airs on book tv at 7:00 p.m. eastern and a.m.y, july 6, at 9:00 >> howard baker died on thursday. a republican from tennessee, he spent 18 years in the senate served as minority and majority leader. he served as president's reagan chief of staff. in 2001, he was appointed ambassador to japan and served until 2005. he announced the resignation of robert gates' nomination as a cia director.

baker took questions from the white house press corps. >> gentlemen, thank you for being here and giving me the opportunity to make my first. i intend to do this often and i intend to do it as circumstances warrant. circumstances warrant. it hasfirst say that been an exciting day for howard baker. the first day of a new job is always challenging, but the first day as chief of staff of the president of the united states is extraordinary. i thought i was busy in the senate. indeed i was. a remarkable, new experience. it is been very busy indeed. i've been with the press off and

on all day in a series of meetings beginning this morning at 9:00 on a variety of subjects. with i haveo begin known ronald reagan since 1966 will stop and i have worked with him almost every day well i was majority leader from 1981 until i left in 1985. i have never seen ronald reagan more energetic, more fully engaged and more in command in difficult circumstances in question then we are dealing with throughout this today. he has never been better. and i have seen him up close on many occasions and i say that first-hand observation. thingsy a number of would've dealt with today in the oval office and in meetings throughout the day and i will touch on two of those announced. first, i would like to announce on behalf of the president said on wednesday, march 4 at 9:00

p.m. eastern, the president will address the nation. foraddress is available live television and radio coverage. and i might also say that we hand out a copy of the letter to the president of the united states from a bob gates. , who is thetes deputy director of central intelligence and i will read that to you. president, it is apparent that there are strong to where the -- i believe a prolonged period of uncertainty would be harmful to the cia and potentially to our national security. i respect that you

withdraw my nomination to be director of central intelligence. i am deeply honored that you chosen for this high position and i pledge my. port and assistant to whomever you -- and i pledge my full support and assistance to whomever you choose. gates came up and advise me of his intention. we arrange a meeting this afternoon at 2:30 for the president to receive mr. gates which he did and the presidents turned in a statement that will be handed out after the session. the statement is as follows and of the president -- "with great regret, i have agreed to robert gates requested that his name be withdrawn as a nominate to be. i met with bob this afternoon and he asked me to withdraw his nomination rather than the extended consideration of the senate. --ould ask bob to consider

to continue serving under a new director. and i look forward to working with him under the next two years. his remarkably talented man who assert five presidents -- who has served five presidents. i have been impressed with the class here shown under the enormous pressures of recent weeks. at any other time, i am certain he would easily be confirmed without delay. it is clear that at this point confirmation would not be in the interest of the cia or nation. mr. gates has done an outstanding job and to continue to serve in that capacity until a new director is confirmed." the president has discussed a number of the names to be submitted to the senate of the united states as director of central intelligence and in no choice has been made by the

president as of this moment. i can ensure you it is an urgent item on the president's agenda and we hope to have a name to submit very soon indeed. say --back up and certain contacts are underway. i cannot say. [indiscernible] i went over a draft with the president today. try tom not going to beat out the president. i think it is a marvelous

speech. i think it's going to be a good speech and will have a profound effect on the country's perception of israel. ramallah -- you're of a long the pain of setting your views -- and you have a long career of setting your views. [indiscernible] thatam acutely aware ronald reagan was president and i am not in my role and responsibility is to serve him as a chief of staff to carry out his programs and proposals and serve him in whatever capacity i can in that role. >> a number the president's plans have been going public [indiscernible] . [indiscernible]

>> i think the advice was heard and the president knows precisely the sentiment in the congress and the party and the to his with respect management style. i would like to say i do not president oroff awol president. he is in touch with the issues before this country. as far as i am concerned, the relation today and is just one day, it has been marvelous. >> i want to follow-up. [indiscernible] found to be out of touch. >> it is clear that during iran situation, there are many things the president did not know and

under better circumstances perhaps he should have known. that is for the president to say. he has come a long way in restructuring national security counsel and replacing personnel. they have already been dealt with. >> how do you intend to restructure? what do you see yourself doing? >> no, not really. all, itnge my mind at has been about the difficulty of getting around this mechanism down here. big staff operation an enormous responsibility and great, diverse sort of challenges. what i have done is meet with the president's staff at 8:00 to ensure them that there will be no wholesale firings and as changes are made and that will be done carefully and deliver late and with full consultation

of those affected. i have put in place a two-man transition team over the weekend and they will continue to transition to observe the situation and make recommendations to me on how the staff should be structured and how the names should be filled obtained. i will carry these recommendations to the president. president's staff and not howard baker's staff. will not set a deadline but now within a week. it will be later. >> [indiscernible] for the first time, ronald reagan has got to become a hands on president. of the wayu think this president approaches this job?

paul todayalked to and i understand fully what he is saying. and i told him what i just told you all at the beginning of this meeting. it has been two years now since i don't regularly with ronald reagan a but i've never seen a better than he is today. -- since i have dealt regularly with ronald reagan, but i've never seen him better than he is today. >> are you concerned about the criticism? >> two parts. an obligation to come to you today and the second part is i opened the remarks i'm making these observations because they are true. , this president is fully in control of his presidency?

is he fully engaged? is he in contact with the problems? experience,day's today he was superb. >> and mrs. reagan -- [indiscernible] talked to mrs. reagan today. i plan on doing that later today. [laughter] intend to do that later today. let me say i've known nancy reagan a long time and i spoke to her on friday. i expect -- [laughter] >> the draft of the speed you have seen, you have described as tremendous. what else do you think the president needs to do to sway momentum in the country? >> i will tell you very frankly i will consult with the president and advisors and i

will help him if he will permit me to to advise a strategy to get a cross of the perception of ronald reagan today that i saw today. >> part of his problem is the investigation -- [indiscernible] what does the president know and what did he know? >> i'm not sure how i will be involved. i will try to be in touch with every aspect of osprey rations -- of operations. but, let me say, at the the publication of the tower commission was a turning point. i think the president was damaged by some allegations and the tower commission, but he survived. i think he is going to grow from this point and strengthen hislarity and will resume role as a very popular a very

effective president of the united states. >> [indiscernible] what are you planning to do about insider trading? for our country and economy. >> and that is a good question. i have a list of things i am going to try to be briefed on and that no doubt will be one of them. >> [indiscernible] can you tell us when you can answer questions? the kind of alertness -- an original plan to be frank with you. they're the resignation -- the

resignation and the president was prepared to do that. it does not quite, together that way. it was decided i would come down and do this. i would expect you will see the present very some. >> [indiscernible] he is willing today. i said a look, we will announce only half of this and not the other half are. why don't we stay and let you do the other half? >> one more. --issy requoted in the "my >> you were quoted in the "miami herald as saying -- [indiscernible] do you stand by the comments? is this, myid experience as a majority leader, iphones of the president was as good as anybody especially -- good asident was as

anybody especially the give and take. two months later, you found that short.ory was but so is mine. and so is yours i suspect. if you're up on a particular issue, that is one thing you try in a few weeks. that is what i meant. the first lady is a distinguished citizen of this nation. she is of strong convictions that that is what i meant. chris what will you talk to her about? >> whatever she wants to talk about. >> on monday, howard baker will lie in repose from noon until 3:00 p.m..

his funeral will be at 1:00 p.m. tuesday. he was 88 years old. timothynture capitalist draper talks about his efforts to divide california into six separate states. oralthe ninth circuit arguments challenging utah's ban on same-sex marriage. that all men are created equal. yet many are denied equal we believe that all men have certain that any label rights. yet many do not enjoy those rights. that all men are entitled to the best scenes -- the blessings of liberty, yet millions are deprived of those

blessings. notbecomes of the -- because of their own failures but because of the color of their skin. the reasons are deeply embedded in the history and tradition. the nature of man. we can understand how this all happened. but it cannot continue. , the foundation of our republic, for bids it. of our freedom permitted -- forbid it. morality forbids it. the law i will sign tonight forbids it. weekend, the 50th anniversary of the 1964 civil rights act with president johnson's addressed the nation and the signing ceremony. later, you're from reporters who covered the debate in congress.

-- hear from reporters who covered the debate in congress. on american history tv on c-span3. capitalist timothy draper is spearheading a pellet measure that would divide california into six separate states. the results would be better managed states with more local control. if organizers get the required 807,000 signatures by july 18, the measure will appear on the november ballot read -- november ballot. this is an hour and five minutes. welcome to today's meeting of commonwealth club of california. you can find us online. on facebook and twitter and are you to channel -- and our

youtube channel. i am pleased to introduce today's featured speaker, tim draper. he is a principal of a well-known venture capital fund. he is the prime mover behind six which would seek to divide california into six states. who tim draperw is. without much ado, i will introduce tim draper, after which we will do questions. [applause] is ok if i stand up here? great. thank you all for coming. this is great. i am honored to be able to speak in front of the commonwealth club. thought what we would do is i

would speak about what i'm doing for about 20 minutes and then open it up for questions. i have had a wonderful, lucky career. i have been in the venture capital business. i have been able to help entrepreneurs create major changes that we all have experienced. where it wast -- an icon that you never thought would change. like the post office. you never thought that would change. and then hotmail came along. marketing.viral we can communicate with anyone around the world very quickly. you don't need to chop down a tree and make paper. guzzler and agas plane to get to somebody. you can just send it through electrons and a fly in the air.

similarly, i thought the phone companies was always the phone company. a place you plug into. that was your way of talking to somebody. and then skype came along. made it so we can all communicate. we can communicate by video so we don't even have to travel to other people to see them. the phone company has changed significantly. i have always thought in terms we always that the car, the automobile would be cost powered -- gas powered. and then we were able to fund alltesla. now it is electric and really great, fun to drive. a terrific change for the better.

we have also funded companies that have created and click be smart grid -- created things rid or solart g panels. make a change and try something and government? why not go after something and allow the creativity of entrepreneurs to think about how you might be able to change government for the better. and why not start here. i was the beneficiary of california. inn the u.s. was tops education and california was first among the 50 states, i was being educated. beneficiary of a great

education from here. but i brought my kids, i thought they must go to the same program i went true. it turned out it was really the same program. my daughter had all the same teachers that i had. the rooms were barren. i didn't quite know what was going on. i got very active in education. i was appointed to the state board of education in california. there were some things that didn't make sense. california had gone from first, two at that time 40th. at this point we are 47 in education. over a 30 or 40 year time. education is a precursor to the economy. education, a great

30 years later, you will have a great economy. that is kind of what happens here in california. if you have a bad education, the same thing happens. you have a bad economy. one of the things i noticed, i will tell you a little story. when i was on the board of education, a town came to us and neyed, can we use our mo to build a gym? we said, how could you take milk away from children? course, if you ever made aretrip, you know they swimming in milk. they have more cows than people. the gym made more sense. they had plenty of milk. why was it that we were making that decision for them? think thatstart to maybe we really need to make it all more local. it needs to be closer to the school.

closer openly down. -- all the way down. i got interested in creating local choice. there was an initiative that went down in flames. we got her to percent of the vote. i went back to my work and thought, i would lead by example three -- in that i started another thing called a university which teaches entrepreneurship 218-28-year-olds. then i learned i was going to be a grandpa. i started to panic. i thought, wait a second. we were first in education when i went to school. are 40th.ds went, we today, we are 47.

educationn not just but the whole system. how could it be that california keep slipping? it turns out we are slipping in other areas, too. we are 50th out of 50 it as a place to do business. we are losing jobs. jobs are going out of the state for many reasons. becauselost 8000 jobs of occidental petroleum moving. toyota 3000 jobs to three days ago. jobs from both00 sony and disney because the movie business is moving out of l.a. our wonderful pride and decided they are going inbuild a battery factory

one of five states, none of which is california. we are driving business away in the state. leaving.le are there is a whole town in tennessee that is all x californians. -- a whole county. that is all ex-californians. we pay the most and have one of rates inst recidivism the country. --used to, back 40's ago, back 40 years ago, spends 26% on infrastructure. highways and waterways. provide.hings states now we spend 3%. if you are in traffic, the water is not too good, it is because

we are not spending anything for infrastructure and california. california. i try to figure out if there was a way to improve the state. back, maybe who gets elected matters. we have had extraordinary people get elected. it really good people and government. entire 40 year time. i have met many of the governors. they are asked ordinary people. the senators, the assembly people. they are looking out for the best interests of you. but they don't really know the best interests of you. are 38 million of us in california. that is a big amount of people. a lot of people to try to understand what each of you once -- wants. i don't feel connected with

sacramento and what is going on there. i don't think they feel connected to me. i think all of us feel that way. we don't feel connected. i put my thinking cap on to try to think through what might be a give us aor this refresh. starters us from a good blank slate. thought, the best operate is one that is similar to the venture capital business. to create startups. start up states that would compete with each other for us. to doeach of the states for us whatever we are trying to get them to do.

allow them to give us a choice. it is really interesting. all sorts of things have come out as a result of this. people have asked me, why don't you just due to state. -- due to bank states. one state.e have we pay the most and we get the worst service. it is because it is a monopoly. way back when, at&t was a monopoly. they broken up. up.hey broke it those six companies gave us better service. they all got more valuable. canlieve the same thing happen in california. if you want to break it into two pieces, that sense of competition and choice will not be there. you will just have to monopolies -- two monopolies.

but with six, you get the sense that you can drive 45 minutes and maybe be a part of a different state. it keeps the states on their toes. we have always been we be people. the people. i have always felt that the government works for us. we the people. recently, i have felt like it is the opposite. i am working for the government. they are telling me what i'm supposed to do. thought, if we do this, how would we do it? how do we create six dates? -- states? went through with a lot of experts, doing a lot of different things to figure out how best to do this. we came up with certain lines. thought, it is possible

it will take a long time for the federal government to approve state. maybe -- why don't we make it work immediately? where at least some of these dynamics happen. initiative that allows all the counties the ability to self organize. each county can choose which state is best for them. if they feel they are in the wrong state, if they have a majority that wants to move, they can move to another state if that state except them. there is a bit of that dynamic that we have created that can go on even before the federal government says ok. federal average --

government ever allow us to have six dates? - i think at some time, it will be one of thetwo -- parties will have it in their best at tryst -- best interest to have six californians. those parties at some time in the future will politically want to have asked california's. californias. after it passes and before the havenment says yes, we can our counties have a lot more power and they can self organize into states. represented.l

one other thing the initiative does is makes it clear that at the state has a mandate for to -- as athey have result, the counties will be able to say, we will not do this on your less you fund it -- do this unless you fund it. it will encourage more business. those counties to be closer to their constituents. your county, you can drive to your county, wherever it is. it is not hard to get your county. by doing that, you will be closer to your government. i have talkedople to at first say, don't change anything about california. that i say, what is so great about the status quo?

we are 50th out of 50. they say, no, you can't change it. all of a sudden the sudden, in their heads, they say what would my state look like. as soon as we get to that point, they know this is going to be a better life. here is goingives to be better off if they had their own state. other people have asked me, what this create the richest state in silicon valley and the poor states in central california? you have to turn that around and say, in the current regime, those are poor states because somehow, the government, the way it is set up, is not working for them. imagine central california deciding, we would like to be a manufacturing center.

we would like to take those jobs leaving california for various reasons. it might end up being the wealthiest state. so i think we've got an opportunity with people in different parts of the state -- way up in jefferson they have been trying to be their own time. for a long they feel that they have taxation without representation. ople feel that sacramento is making them fill out documents the whole time. and they wish it was more efficient in the cloud or whatever. there are so many things we could be doing that