at 8:30, a discussion with me been shaped on how radical islam recruits followers. at 9:30, we will joined by mark kiesling. on transgender rights. host: good morning, it is "the washington journal." we want to get your thoughts on the most important are least important news story of the week. lots of events took place this week. for million federal government workers may have had their data compromised by a government hack. democrat lincoln chafee and rick perry both announce their presidential campaigns. you may want to throw your own story into the mix as well. here's how you can do so this morning.

call -- if you want to post your thoughts on the most or least important story of the week on our social media pages on twitter, we do have a facebook page, and if you want to send us an e-mail on your thoughts as well, you can do so. many of the papers talking about that data breach that took place within the federal government. for million federal workers might be affected by it. this is the cover from the usa saying that includes credit card data, banking records, and other forms of financial information that could have been stolen in the attack, affecting people across the spectrum of the federal government. according to the office of personnel management, which conduct background checks for

security clearances among other responsibilities, it said no to find effective workers, there has been reported yet unconcerned -- so perhaps the losses more than just 4 million federal employees. again, that is one of the stories that just broke overnight yesterday and into today. there are others you may want to categorize this as most important story of the week are perhaps the least important, at least to you. if you want to give us a call on your thoughts on what stories are most or least important --

caller: chickens and turkeys have been killed because of the flu and no one in the mainstream media are talking about it. they are so busy talking about legalizing marijuana and hillary and other important things or so-called important things, but nothing about the bird flu which is affecting everyone who loves chicken or who wants to have turkey come thanks giving. host: why is this story important to you specifically? caller: the fact is i am very concerned about the food that i eat. come thanksgiving, i would like to have a turkey my table.

this is affecting a lot of farmers in the midwest. host: when you read about this story, you think it is not a widespread story as far as the media is concerned where do you go for information? caller: basically come on the internet, i go to different websites. hi know they are talking about it on t -- on rt and true news.com. as far as mainstream medium, no. when i listen to the farmer port, they are talking about it. host: the university of missouri takes a look at infectious diseases. again, that is a concern for our first color set a. let's go -- our first color today. let's go to battle creek. caller: it's in michigan. the most important news story

jeb bush -- i learned that jeb bush was a founding member of the project for a new american century, which is the neocon think tank which cooked up the iraq war. and they -- and then dick cheney is coming out with a book which i assume is going to try to justify all the warlike -- all the interventions and wars that he thinks we should be having in the middle east. so my big news story is the republican party has gone back to the stupid disastrous war policies of the bush administration. under george w and that jeb bush is a neocon just like dick cheney. and i can't wait to read dick cheney's new book about what new wars we should have. host: so when it comes to jeb bush, where did you learn that information? caller: there were two sources.

one was a columnist from arkansas -- what's his name? i can't remember. he is a columnist from arkansas. he is syndicated. if people want to look, they can actually go -- the project for new americans sectioningcentury is still on the web. if you google project for a new american century, there they all are. jeb bush is right next to dick cheney because it is alphabetical. so it is jeb bush, did cheney, paul wolfowitz, doug fife. [laughter] host: that is ralph in battle creek, michigan. arnold, daytona beach florida. good morning, how are you? caller: i'm fine. host: go ahead.

caller: i have watched this show for several years and i can't get over the fact that nobody ever does anything to check the allies that get told on the air. i went to wikipedia and looks up, for instance, like right now we have this trade agreement that is trying to get pushed through. i went back and looked at the old trade agreement, the books on it. the republicans voted 61 and 38 democrats voted for nafta. in the house, 132 voted for it. so this was a republican bill. yes, mr. clinton signed it, but the point i am try to make here is when mr. clinton signed that, he signed that because he was told you either -- we had control of the house and the senate. you are going to do this or you are not going to get anything for the next four years.

what i don't understand about mr. obama right now is he is not in that situation. he is leaving office. people need to look back and see what the history of the trade agreement was before and understand that this is republican. host: so you recall stories of the trade agreement you are reading perhaps today as far as this trade agreement -- is that the most important story for you to follow. caller: i really think so. if you look at our economy right now, you know, it took several years for the mess to really kill us. it is really hurting the economy of the united states. people need to look at that. they need to think about that and give their senators or congressmen a call and let them know that we don't want history repeating itself. host: so trade was one of the stories that came out yesterday as the leaders of the house on

the republican and democratic side, came to the microphone and talked about this. trade deal they are trying to pass it would give the president abilities to trade with some asian nations. it was john boehner who took to the microphone. talking about more people coming along the lines of agreeing with the trade deal. speaker boehner yesterday was asked specifically if he had the votes to pass the trade bill. here is his response. [video clip]

we are working to get the trade promotion authority finished. it is important for the country. i have been meeting with members over the last few days. i will continue to meet with members. and talked to the president yesterday. he's got some work to do, too. >> we spoke with majority leader mccarthy today. he said you would have the votes later today. speaker boehner: sooner is better than later. >> by this afternoon? speaker boehner: we won't get it done in june. it's important to get this finished. >> then go get it done. speaker boehner: we are going to get it done. host: we will get the democratic response in a little bit. your least and most important story of the week. that is what we are asking for. call -- chuck is next from utah,

independent line. caller: yesterday, john mccain was talking with his military bill, $612 billion defense bill that we should stick up for our soldiers. and he had a lot to say about all of that. and then when it came down to the same-sex marriage amendment vote, he voted against it. i feel that -- and i am not for same-sex marriage, but i feel that these people who are brave enough to go off and fight for our country, their spouses regardless of their gender should be able to appreciate benefits. host: now that the national

defense authorization at, $612 billion as part of the bill, this faces a veto threat from the president. kathryn, hello, from north conway, new hampshire, independent line. caller: good morning. i think the most important issue is fast tracking tpp, both of which i am against. but if tpp does pass, there is a solution for american citizens. it will only take me a few minutes. this solution would be all across the u.s. there could be three the printer stores -- 3-d printer stores. if one wanted to buy a thousand products, they could go to these u.s. 3-d printer stores, look at a catalog, pick a pattern, by the material, and make the product in the store or at a

home, or at their home 3-d printers. in the past, a person could go buy a dress pattern and the material and make it in their home sewing machine. and also, the 3-d printers could print other 3-d printers so they wouldn't have to be outsourced to be made. and people who lost their jobs in manufacturing could run these 3-d printer stores. so my advice for u.s. manufacturing companies, make their products in the u.s. and take -- or individuals will be making their own products. thank you. host: katherine saying that trade is an important story for her. you heard about the republican response to the trade deal. nancy pelosi also talking about what is in store when it comes to this.

nancy pelosi: in his caucus, he has the majority and his responsibility. and every time we had a bill they came to the floor when i was a speaker and he said it was a test of my leadership, it is a test of his. i have confidence in him. i think he can deliver 200 of his members, but it is not my responsibility. host: let's hear from amy about the most or least important story. caller: how are you today? host: i am well, thanks. go ahead. caller: i think the best solution for our ailing economy would be right to work stations sponsored by major corporations like dow, dupont monsanto, i don't know, etc. host: why do you think that is the most important or news item to you? caller: what it would use the

state would buy the land to put something about as big as a rest stop area and they would be right to work stations instead of paying 18% or 17% corporate taxes, they could cut that back to about 8%. and these companies would sponsor these stations for these people to come to work at, the mentally ill, ex cons aliens single parents, the unemployed. all these people can just come at the drop of a dime. they could give them their social security card if they have it, their green card, or whatever and set up some gardens on either side, set up some tepees for overnight stays. they could make seven dollars to $10 an hour, depending on their skill level for their wages. they would get paid by the hour.

they can work an hour and leave. they don't have to come at all if they don't want to. they could work to her three hours, overnight whatever, and they may just be passing through a need gas money. they have -- they can have showers and sleep if necessary. host: ok. david from vermont, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i was watching hillary's latest non-interview speech and was also listening to al jazeera talking about the suit going to court in the fall talking about voting rights and one person one vote, how much does it count? and i wanted the supreme court to take these things into account. they should be considered. you must be a u.s. citizen.

if not, you devalue all us-born and efforts of all naturalized u.s. immigrant legal as citizens who have taken the time to go through the system to become citizens and to show their respect to the country that is giving them a chance to live liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. to give noncitizens of any race the right to vote the legitimizes the vote of every u.s. citizen born and citizens who have picked an attempt to go through the legal process. legal age by state, which -- goes different state-by-state, defined as like the legal age to drink in that state, it cannot be valued by lowering the state so that underaged or below 18 or 21 or whatever can vote. host: while you are on the phone and since you are from her monde, there was a story in "the new york times" taking a look at

universal health care efforts for a single parent system and those things not taking place. is health care in your state something that you follow and these efforts by the governor? caller: i haven't followed it very much because i'm on -- i have medicare and medicaid at this point. so i don't have to pay for my health care. i get it on my disability through an accident that i had. so i haven't followed very much what goes on in this state in particular. i have been watching. what is going on in the national news for you much. host: jeff from virginia. caller:, good morningcaller: thank you for taking my call c-span. i was watching the house hearing the other day on the freedom of information act. the representative had passed of the chair. why didn't independent lawyers look at hillary's e-mails rather than once hired by her? it should have been an

independent screening source on these imo controversies rather than a biased lawyer. host: did you watch the hearing because of hillary clinton or eu watching to learn more about the freedom of information act? what drew you to the hearing? caller: i am a c-span junkie. it was on and i was just taking in the concepts of the freedom of information act. the delayed problems, they say it could take 10 or 15 years for some things to be released. it is way too long. host: www.c-span.org is where you find all those hearings after they are taken in and recorded. go to our video library. you will notice on the front page, former texas governor rick harry making the announcement

being the 10th republican joining others in his interest of becoming the president of the united states. a speech out of addison, texas, is where they made that speech. it is on the front page of "that eunice chronicle -- "the houston chronicle" as well. here's a portion of that announcement yesterday from addison, texas. [video clip] mr. paren -- mr. perry: we don't have to settle for a world in cary us -- and chaos or an america that shrinks from its responsibilities. we don't have to apologize for american exceptionalism or

western values. we don't have to accept slow growth that leaves behind the middle class, that leaves millions of americans out of work. we don't have to settle for crumbling bureaucracies that target taxpayers and harm our veterans. we don't have to resign ourselves to the dead, decay, and slow growth. we have the power to make things new again to project america's strength again, and to get our economy going again. and that is exactly why today i am running for the presidency of the united states of america. host: again, that whole announcement available at www.c-span.org. off of twitter --

let's hear from kevin, staten island, new york. caller: i am a big fan of c-span. two days ago, i attended a book tv event in brooklyn with c-span. the most important story of the week is the hillary clinton call for every american to be registered to vote. but i am not that happy with her prescription for what should be used. she called for expanding access to pull places, keeping them open at least 20 days and offering voting hours on evenings and weekends. an ima big as what i am a big fan of is what oregon has done, though by mail. c-span doesn't cover oregon and the way that they vote a. little bit more i rarely hear about it on c-span. i think the country rarely hears

about it. it is an effective way to get this country to get a higher participation in voting. host:? caller: why do you think it works first of all, when it was passed by the citizens of oregon, 70% of the citizens voted to approve it. there is little or no voter fraud involved with it and there's very few -- it hasn't been overturned. it is effective. it works, voting by mail. but of course, the politicians with the interest they have to stay in office, they are not going to back it. but i think this is the direction we should move in. hillary clinton certainly knows about this and i wish she would endorse this type of effort. host: that is kevin from new york. michael from virginia, independent line. caller: thanks for c-span.

i am totally dismayed that governments and politicians campaigning never mention the fact that we have an extremely high murder rate in this country, one of the highest in the world. it is a lot of youth on youth violence domestic-family violence. it is very much inspired by. the entertainment industry. you can cite cases like the texas massacre proceeded a day or so by in the diver seen almost identical. the hunger games is highly praised. it's about youth on youth violence murder.

how do we condone a business that is causing far more deaths than any foreign power with terrorism in this country? we need to protest to our leadership to investigate the role of the media in this high murder rate. host: your most important or least important story of the week. call -- on the abc news website the headline "legit sex abuse victim is named by family."

again, that is off the abc news website. we can go read more of that. salem, illinois, charles, go ahead. caller: i would like an answer

yes or no from you. are you going to report that the builder burgers are meeting in austria on the 10th or 14th of this month. it meets every year. are you going to report it? host: i don't have anything in the papers about it. why do you think it is important? caller: you won't hear about it. it is about 100 ev people who plan how to use our taxpayer money. they are. for a one world government every year they made and reporters attend and are sworn to secrecy. peter jennings and tom brokaw attended years ago but neither one of them reported it. you never see anything in the american free press newspaper. why do you people not reported? host: let me ask you, why do you

think it is important to know and what do you think happens there that influences what happens in the world? caller: they are the people who drive decisions that are made. a lot of the people that have been elected president have been elected. congressman attend. if it is not important, why do they attend? host: thank you for bringing it to the attention of folks. gary from north carolina democrats line, hello. caller: hello. i'm 66 years old and it seems like my entire life they have been investigating hillary clinton. that's all you ever hear. i know that -- host: go ahead, gary. are you still there? caller: i thought i got off

anyway, i know when people go to washington,. they learn to play the game they all got lawyers. the committees have lawyers. they have lawyers. the clintons are lawyers. they are pretty good at it, seems like. it seems like to me that they already know what the charges are going to be, what the next rumor or the next thing. and they play this out. and i just think that hillary clinton is just a lot better than they are. and they can't stand it. at some point in the in this -- in this investigation, the latest benghazi or whatever it is, she is going to make him look like a fool in front of anybody, knowing in advance with this man is going to say. host: it was oregon that got

mentioned by a previous caller about their boating plan that ended up in a speech that was her hillary clinton yesterday. take a look at expanding voting rights, this is a bloomberg politics of story. it was "the houston chronicle" cover the speech thursday, hillary clinton accusing republicans of deliberately trying to stop odors from trying to go to the polls. that is "the houston chronicle" take on it. >> 40 years after barbara jordan fought to extend the voting rights act, it's hard has been bricked out. -- it's heart has been ripped out. i wish it could hear her speak up for the student who has to wait hours for his or her right

to vote. for the grandmother who is turned away from the polls because her drivers license expired. for the father who has done his time and paid his debt to society but still has not gotten his rights back. now we know, unfortunately barbara is not here to stick up for them and so many others, but we are. and we have a responsibility to say clearly and directly, what is really going on in our country? because what is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people, and young people from one end of our country to the other. host: go to www.c-span.org for

more of that speech on voting rights by the former secretary of state. a couple things to show you as ago to the most important story of the week. if you go to our twitter page, a viewer mentioned that according to a story that is important to him, why no outreach find that mainstream media to edward snowden now that his whistleblowing has resulted in his actions? in the pages of "the new york times" taking a look at events, this week, the world says no to surveillance. you can find it there. we will talk about this a little bit with our first guest of the morning julian sanchez of the cato institute. if you want to read the thoughts of edward snowden, specifically the talks about action this week on congress and the nsa, that is "the new york times" website. also, taking a look at global warming. scientists have long labor to explain what happens to be a showdown in global warming that started at the start of a

century. at the same time, the slowdown sometimes inaccurately describes as a halt or hiatus -- the change did prompt accusations on thursday and the global climate says they are trying to wave a magic wand and make inconvenient data the way. also if "the new york times" carries another story, this is about the topic of fracking, the epa putting out a new report saying that for the most part, it has no effect on the fracking on water supply but warns of potential -- that is in the epa

report, adding the long-awaited drop found that the technique used in hydraulic tracking and has the potential to contaminate water in specific instances in which the chemicals used in fracking lead to contamination of water -- mike is up next from north carolina, the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i guess i would have to say that the continuously underreported story is the staggering evidence , i identify myself as republican but i am a conservative. republican is a party and conservative is an ideology, but we have on display across the country in baltimore, detroit oak wind cleveland, wherever 50 years or so of liberal policies without hardly any republican interference whatsoever.

and the story this week that seems to be flying under the radar is the state of connecticut raising their income taxes again. connecticut used to be a bastion of american capitalism and industry with companies like general electric sikorsky,, the home of pretty much the american insurance industry. 20 iesco they do not even have an income tax. 20 years ago, connecticut was a bastion of people going there for jobs, industry, and to better their lives. people are fleeing now. companies are fleeing. yet, they have not learned -- the left has not learned that you cannot continue to raise taxes on the productive people in society without killing the goose that laid the golden egg. this is on display in baltimore, cleveland, detroit, wherever. this is the most underreported story in america and i believe not to be critical of you but it is because most journalists

and people in the press in this country tend to lean to the left. that is their right. walter compat was a self liberal but he managed part that and leave it out the door when he comes -- reported his news. that is no longer the case. we now have advocacy journalism that fails to report these things. as far as comments, i will tie into what some of the previous caller's said about voting. people are not going to better their lives by boating. they're going to better their lives by bettering themselves. they have been voting left continuously and consistently in places like new york, baltimore cleveland which -- for five decades. my question is like dr. poe, how is that working out for you? that is my underreported story of the week. host: call for massachusetts you are next. good morning. caller: good morning. a nice day. we know more -- we need more shows like "washington journal."

real quick, bruce jenner, second, kardashian second pregnancy, three, the sex scandal and four, -- i'm side but the media seems to be so starstruck that they can't even get rid of starstruck. from tom brady -- it is just so starstruck. get to the facts. host: norma from baytown, texas democrat line. caller: good morning. i really feel that the most important story is -- -- border. nobody thinks it's important. my sister and i did not think it was important until my mother who was 92 years old, was getting ready to renew her drivers license. well we went and took her there to get her new drivers license

it was flagged. it said alien. birth, unknown. it took us, here and tech is one year and six months to get my mother's -- her drivers license renewed. due to the fact that she was 92 and had a stroke and no longer drove, we had to get her identification card. the problem was is that in 1923, when she was born, she was born at home. it did not seem to be that important to us. it took us one year and six months to get hurt renewed so that she could vote. and people think it is not important, but when it comes up to you it -- we had to take her back to luskin to get heart records, we had to go to

crockett, we had all kinds of trouble. and not only that, but we had to get it notarized. ok, texas has notaries in the public -- ok. host: ok, norma. apologies, as far as an thank you for sharing your experience. scott from new york, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. this is scott from: hand, new york. notice i am not democrat, republican, i am a human. the two stories i would like to touch on this week is one blaming all of that writing and murders on drugs that were stolen -- rioting and murders on drugs. you have the mexican mafia bringing millions and millions of drugs across the border every day and that does not really

make everybody shoot each other anymore. the blame is that everybody is out of control and you have a war on drugs and a war on the majority of the people in the united states. maybe we could get some peace in this country instead of more like we have. number 2 -- as i saw the other day with where they played that -- cruz was badmouthing the present -- the vice president joe biden in a time of sorrow the way he was there, that is somebody who has no character to be a president of the united states. that was not a mistake. he spewed up garbage about our vice president whether we like him or not he is our vice president, and now he is running -- this gentleman is running for president. we are going to choose him question mark no. -- choose him? no. the answer is 50 something

percent of the people out there could vote and we don't feel represented. there is a problem. if half of us get together, we could run the country. everybody, thank you. [indiscernible] i have been calling out for 15 years or more and i watch. these phone lines are very equal and you do a darn good job at seized and and we will talk to you next month. host: scott from new york. cnn and others of that ted cruz apologize for the joe biden joke. that on the cnn website about the vice president. a picture in "the washington times" which shows him and his wife and window of beau biden. you saw that if you are watching c-span. people came back and talked to family. "washington times" writing that biden laid in honor of the

procession from dover. it was decorated with white flowers and the casket was with a black and white photo of miss biden with his wife and children and a conspicuous cross presented to him thursday. the biden family led by joe biden stood in receiving line warmly greeting well-wishers with hugs and handshakes punch waited with smiles and tears as music played softly in the background. the funeral for biden takes place in wilmington, delaware, on saturday. you can see that on c-span at 10:30. carl is up next. carl is from west virginia republican line. caller: good morning. you know, when the congress was debating this american freedom act, my thinking was, you know, i would be willing to give up a little of my freedom to stop a horrendous attack on this

country, but then i got to thinking about what the obama administration did to that woman down in texas that started an organization. they sent the irs down to auditor company -- audit her company and said the irs back to her personal accounts and then the fbi showed up trying to say she was promoting terrorism. not only that, but the tobacco and firearms people showed up. and they showed up other company, you tell me this is a coincidence? i do not believe it. if the government can collect this much information to what they can do to a private citizen is scary as hell. after this, i just don't believe

-- i am very skeptical of our government. i just can't believe this all happened. host: that is carl from west virginia. carl, stay with us if you can because our next segment at 7:45 what about that very topic. if you can stay with us, please, do so. let's hear from lou in tennessee. good morning, lou. caller: [indiscernible] host: are you there? tell you what, we will put you on hold and we will get back to you once you turn down your television, how about that? let's go to jeff in hawaii on our independent line. good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you. got some new got good news. i have not been able to really function most of my life, i have polio and it involved the nervous system and i had something done to my head back our quest. here's the thing -- you know when you get a migraine headache

that kind of blinds you of everything else around you? well this setup that i had to live through broke down for years or five years ago and i got some of the opening i needed and there is relief. i am able to be here. i got the tumor or something for about that long and i have not been keeping track of what is going on since about 1980. i am seeing all this stuff and i recall in the 1950's and 1960's, all of that is fresh. before i go on much further, they came up with a way to get effective pain medicine out of sugar. this could fill in between that over-the-counter medicines and the obedience. i think -- the opiates. i think that is a lot of good news there. for me, this is like i am brand-new and i am 62.

host: most important or least important story of the week. that is what we are asking. let's try again in tennessee on the democrat line. caller: five, how are you? host: fine, go ahead. caller: yes, i watch this wonderful documentary called "inside job" by charles ferguson. i guess you are people and the government it was not important but to me it is quite important. in 2008 or leading up to it, the lehman brothers got billions basically between the five executives. 470 million and also merrill lynch got 90 million, stan o'neal in the top executives 3.6 billion. aig, i am almost done, the man

who ran aig gets still $1 million per month to advise our government. also, it has also gone into the economic and this one man who kept going on, glenn hubbard, he is -- they are advising our government and he -- and teaching our students. i just find this appalling. if i had stole this kind of money, and i think it is stealing, from a company i work for, they would have thrown me away and locked me up and thrown away the key. one other thing i just want to say quickly, i sit here, i am 73 years old, and i think we need to get as many out of politics. there is so much money out --

and politics. think of the billions and billions of dollars these 30 or 40 people are raising and what good that could do for the united states of america. i can remember when i was a kid -- host: i think we may have lost the connection. i apologize for that. yeah, that will be the last call we will take on this topic. what you what, those of you who called with interest in actions by the federal government concerning the nsa and data collecting practices and changes made by congress, our next guest warning us. we will talk about those things and the larger issue of pharmacy and data collection with julian sanchez with the cato institute and later on in the program, we will hear from an author. the author of "undercover jihadi." he was 19 when he committed himself to radical islam and left that mindset after 9/11. we will hear his story and what his thoughts are concerning the

modern-day issues of that time when "washington journal" continues after this. ♪ >> this sunday on c-span "road to the white house," the conversation with former virginia senator and likely democratic presidential candidate ken webb, he discusses going up in a military family and his service as a marine in be it not. american foreign policy, politics, congress, and why he wants to be president. >> this country needs leadership . if you look anywhere in the country and ask people what they believe is missing a. the federal level is leadership and trust. people who have the experience and they can show they have a record and worked across the

aisle and get things done. it is sort of a blessing in my profession that i have been able to spend about half of my time in public service and half of itself and time doing other things, working for myself as the sole proprietor, and believe very strongly that we need to create a new environment in washington where we have leaders who can talk across the aisle and actually solve our problems. >> jim webb, this thursday -- this sunday at "road to the white house 2016" on c-span. >> this summer, but tb will cover book festival from around the country and top nonfiction authors. this weekend, we are alive from the chicago tribune lit fest including our three-hour live in depth program with pulitzer prize-winning author and your phone calls. in the end of june, watch for

the annual was about reading festival from the franklin d. roosevelt presidential library. in the middle of july, we are live at the harlem book fair the flagship african-american literary event with author interviews and panel discussion. at the beginning of september, we are live from the nations capital for the book festival celebrating the 15th year. those are some of the events this summer on c-span2's "but to be." -- "look tv." host: joining us now julian sanchez, a senior fellow and we take a look at privacy issues and technology. guest: good morning. host: what is the lesson learned about data collection by the government especially after this week and congress action on the nsa? guest: despite the early protestations about the legality of large-scale bulk collection that after two years of fairly thorough investigation by a couple of independent panels, there was the conclusion that bulk collection was not necessary to protect america.

that traditional target collection of particular phone numbers or anything suspicious and you need specific orders to get information out. the suspect is adequate and that the public was overwhelmingly in favor of saying what they felt was like an out of control agency reined in. when of the more depressing things i have seen watching the public reaction to the passage of the usa freedom act earlier this week, which is a modest but significant reform, is the number of people i see saying, well, does it make a difference? will be just secretly find a way to do what they have been doing anyway under some other authority? i think it is a troubling thing that significant numbers of people and normal people saying congress passed a law with -- and it is clear with the intention of this is but we are

not confident that law will be followed. that is a sign of something really unhealthy. host: if that is the case, what is the response you would give to those people who have those kind of sentiments and thoughts? guest: we have a check built into that. the usa freedom act, i think, has come in for -- from a strange amount of seats from both sides. it passed with an overwhelming margin this week after a brief time of headline saying the patriot act expired and was not to come about 2% of the patriot act had lapsed temporarily. this amended set of authorities that have been used to gather data, three types of authorities, really, there was a section 215 which was used for the nsa's infamous bulk program and the other for metadata and national security letters handed out by fbi agents without judicial approval. across the board, he tries to regulate those for bidding bulk election and indiscriminate collections require the government's use to specific

terms like a fun number or e-mail address, when it attends that data -- proteins that data. in addition, it also has a transparency piece. the idea is to present what happens after the passage of the patriot act. the patriot act created these authorities to get information relevant to an investigation. the authors said, look, we've got that was a targeted authority. something that is specifically connected to some specific investigation and the secret interpreted that to mean intentionally, it the entire database and to be able to search through everyone's phone records. this was something i think was very disturbing to members of congress. they thought they had authorized something limited but found they authorized something more. the law now will require the court -- and secret they consider applications to use these authorities, to publish declassified information and

interpretations of law. including this you requirement that the government used in election terms. the idea there is a begin to ensure that they can't in secret, say, well, now you can use something that is obviously too broad as your election term and sleeping too much information. congress gives the public a chance to say, no, that is not what we meant and maybe rain in -- and maybe reign in and the government is not used to getting much push back. host: does the freedom act provide some kind of advocate for americans as far as the information that is taken and what it has been what the? guest: this is something that have been proposed for a long time. unlike most courts, it only hears from one side in closed proceedings. it is totally normal for even normal terminal courts. closed proceedings where it hears just from the government when doing wiretap applications.

but those courts eventually also hear from other sides like a person who was wiretapped will have a chance to challenge what is done or object. ultimately, it leads to both sides. this is a really unique or that almost never hears from anyone other than the government. the proposal had been floated to increase some kind of advocate someone who would speak for the interest of privacy and civil liberties. this was water down a little bit. -- bothered down a little bit. -- watered down a little bit. they take perspectives drawing on legal expertise celebrities and in cases involving some significant legal questions. not just your garden-variety application. in is a discussion of the court and they don't have to ever appoint amicus. in a particular case, they are strongly encouraged to and are supposed to file a finding of

why it is not appropriate as they have a case where they do not. how effective will that be question mark it is impossible to know. it is not -- how effective will that be? it is impossible to know. it is not a traditional lawyer who has contact with and representing the interest of a person or people being wiretapped. still, if you look at some of the business release from the court and government, you get a very clear sense that some of the arguments that the court accepts and embraces are not the sort of thing that would be swallowed if you had another perspective. we saw very clearly, i think, and the decision of the second circuit court of appeals finding that it is bulk telephone database was unlawful under and even the patriot act is authorized and what they were doing was too far a stretch. it shows you get a very different result when both sides of the argument can infer. host: issues of privacy and security when it comes to

government data collection with our guest julian sanchez. 202-7 48-8001 for republicans. (202)-784-8000 for democrats. host: sean from florida, you are next. caller: i think is the thing about laws, and they are all laws, every law that has been passed, they all have a way -- a lot puts you in a spot. there are certain people, everybody couldn't do it, you have educated lawyers and people that no law and they can take that box up and move it. when they picked that box up and move it, they are in a place that that law was never meant to be and that is the problem you find with the tax code, the problem you find with this while you are talking about, that is the problem with almost every law that is every made.

our society is made -- if i had $1 million, i would not ask somebody who had never had $2000 in their bank account to tell me what to do with my money. that is just stupid. in the same sense, we are doing the same thing backwards. you have all these rich people trying to tell poor people what they need to do and they have no idea what they need to do. host: sean from florida, let me add this this morning because it talks about law. tranquility says, what makes you think the nsa will follow the law? does anyone in d.c. follow the law anymore? guest: this are my three of an old story who -- he broke the law and hennessy said, judge the good people do not need and the bad people don't follow it, so why bother? there is something to that. i think on the one hand, the secrecy surrounding these

proceedings does create a sense and a somewhat justified sense that it is futile because the law is so complicated and there is so much room to navigate that whatever you try to do, they can find some way to continue doing it. can find some way to continue doing it. that is a somewhat legitimate concern that there are so many overlapping authorities. that he prohibited them from doing something domestically they can go overseas and on the global internet, at least, for certain communications. you can pick up the same information outside the u.s. very often without some restrictions. that is a legitimate concern. that is why it is important not to stop where we have and also regulate the collection under authorities like section 7.2 under the pfizer laments act -- under the fisa amendments act.

and the law the art governs what happens outside the u.s. if you look at what happened over the course of the years following 9/11, you do not see them just saying all of law. you see them contorting to try and squeeze things they want to do and were already doing. the program launched called stellar wind right after 9/11 -- it was revealed in part of the wireless tapping story the new york times broke. that had selection of content, phone calls, and connect medications and metadata in bulk . when the new york times broke that, they started thinking we have to find ways to do this under more obvious, legal authorities. you did see them farming this out and using it into existing authorities.

you also do see cases were lawyers, internally, say there are no limits. james coney is the head of the f ei -- fbi. famously for those spending their time reading about surveillance, he had a showdown with president bush's attorney general. it involved one of these collection programs that coney thought was not supported by legal authority. you had a high level tier of the justice department that was prepared to resign if the president went over the legal advice of the justice department and authorized the collection of internet metadata and away they had decided was unlawful. what happened was rather cosmetic that allowed the collection to continue. it suggested that they look for

all the wiggle room of they can and will stretch the law further than an ordinary person may think possible. but there are limits. they are not willing to openly -- openly disregard what the losses. host: ohio, good morning. caller: good morning. i wonder what your guest feels about government data on a very micro level. governor mcgrory in north carolina is going to assign an abortion bill, which includes having doctors send in information to the state regarding people who have had abortions, including ultrasounds. how is that -- that is a privacy concern. what about that privacy versus security and who will have access to these records? guest: i have to call yet this by saying i am not familiar with this specific legislation. i cannot say a lot specifically about it or its purpose.

but this reminds me a little of a case from the 1950's called naacp v. alabama about an alabama statute together membership lists. it said that private groups had to turn their membership lists over to the government. the 1950's, being a supporter of the naacp was something that may be socially dangerous for you. the supreme court ruled not on fourth amendment grounds privacy grounds, but on first amendment associational grounds. the idea being that you were chilling people's expressive association by gathering this information. you could make a related argument that this kind of information gathering in addition to whatever burden it may have on privacy, chills people's exercise of medical or

bodily autonomy. i think that is a real concern, though i have not looked at the specific law, so i cannot speak to if it strikes a balance. host: stephen from oklahoma. caller: good morning. i guess you can hear me now. before i talk to mr. sanchez that hillary speech at southern university the law was voted on by millions of voters from the great state of texas. now mr. sanchez. i hear these people so scared of government collecting all of these phone numbers and whatever. it is mind-boggling how many messages the government had to listen to their all these messages. even the computer could not. that is crazy. that is how i feel.

i am more worried about the internal revenue service. the nsa is there to protect us, no matter who is in power. they are there to protect us. all of these people who do not want the patriot act, they could -- host: thank you. guest: if you look back at, for example, the kind of abuses intelligence authorities that were revealed in the 1970's by the church committee, which inspired the foreign intelligence service act limiting the use of government intelligence authorities and was rolled back significantly by the passage of the patriot act, what you find in those reports is that these are not separate things. the abuse of intelligence authorities by the fbi and cia and nsa to spy on antiwar

activists, civil rights leaders, was a piece with the use of the internal revenue service to harass and intimidate and chill similar types of groups. these are not separate concerns. they tend to go together. you find that one the irs is being misused for other types of government authority as well. they make a convenient complement to each other. information gathered under intelligence authorities and -- can be used to prosecute ordinary crimes. hypothetically, if you wanted to harass a politically inconvenient group are the internal revenue service, one way to do that, in principle, would read by taking information gathered through very large-scale collection that may be evidence of some kind of minor tax impropriety.

the tax code is so convoluted you can probably find almost anyone guilty of some kind of tax instruction in the course of a decade. we know the government is engaged mostly in drug cases in what is known as parallel construction, when the intelligence surveillance yields information that is passed to local prosecutors and law enforcement, and the origin in intelligence of that information is concealed. they gin up their own story about how their investigation started. often, judges and prosecutors and the defense is not aware of this. you are not aware the investigation started from tips from it intelligence agencies. i am not saying anything like this is being done now. but if you worry about abuse in the internal revenue service you should be worried about how

that dovetails into their potential abuse of intelligence stories. host: in the new york times, a program sanction why the administration and nsa that would look at americans international internet traffic to look at computer hacking, according to nsa documents. usa today takes a look at the 4 million or so federal employees who may have had their data compromised. a hack at the office of personnel management. guest: if you pay it reasonable attention and read between the lines, slightly, it is reasonably clear that the authority under section 7.2 of the fisa amendments act says there is the general want to collect came occasions was being used for cyber security purposes. there were enough hints of that in the documents released. it is something of a larger scale.

something like terrorism nuclear proliferation, is largely centered overseas with much more targeted intersections. it is relatively rare. there is a limited number of terrorists and nuclear proliferators in the world. cyber attacks are more, and more likely to get you and tangled with civilian networks. for example, if you monitor a cyber attack on a u.s. company or server, it is more likely to involve the exposure of private information about u.s. persons' totally unrelated to the crime whether that is that so that information is extrapolated from a u.s. source. seeing how cyber security ends and a large intelligence service expands the scope of concern

about how this authority involves incidental collection of american data. there is this enormous breach of course, and because there are less than five bills before congress to facilitate information sharing about cyber security threats from the private sector to the government. the idea that if only we let them share more information with the government, somehow we will be more able to prevent cyber attacks. we heard about this massive reach at the office of personnel management. we think, if only they share information with the federal government. the government's own track record on securing its networks against malicious hacks like this is pretty abysmal. it is no better than the private sector, if not worse. there perhaps targeted more often, so we give that much of an excuse. there is not a ton of reasons or

think they are better situated to do this then -- t the networkshan they are asking to share information. host: adrienne for maryland, up next. caller: i have two concerns. no one is speaking about the patriot act, where they can detain people for -- it is not matter the amount of time. they can keep you forever with no trial or jury. they can say -- you cannot drive. and detain you. and that it -- and not tell your family where you are. china or north korea concentration camp. the government is trying to keep all of this information, but with that breach, how does that affect other people when we are breached about our information that the government is taking without our permission? thank you and have a good day. guest: in light of supreme court

rulings that have followed the patriot act it is not clear they can do to a new, forever. habeas corpus still exists. in the days immediately following 9/11, material witness statutes that allowed people to be detained, not because they are directly accused of a crime but because they are to have information about it, was stretched broadly to detain large numbers of arabic and muslim men. we should absolutely be concerned about that and on the lookout for any kind of recurrence in the wake of any future attack, which sooner or later seems inevitable. i think you're a asking about the effect of data breaches on other people, that is certainly a concern. one of the difficult things about information breaches is

your privacy is almost never just your own privacy, if that makes sense. in prosaic terms, even if you do not have a facebook account, there may be information about you on facebook indirectly because of information your friends are posting. when someone else's account is compromise, that may contain information compromising your identity or sensitive information for you. in the case of opm, i do not know if the data of the employees is as likely to have that effect, though certainly the prime concern they seem to have now is that this could be used for identity theft. they are offering 18 months of credit monitoring for people who may have been exposed. that is certainly something that would have an effect not just on the individual but on entire families.

host: from oregon, joey is up next. caller: good morning. can you hear me? guest: good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question of julian. i know the government monitors phone calls and everything, but what about on the internet? your e-mail i just -- address. i know a little about computers where if someone has bluetooth next door or something, they can somehow listen in on your conversations, but i want to ask him if the government is even doing any kind of investigation on the e-mails that are sent back and forth and any kind of -- anything like that going on? that is the question and good morning to both of you. guest: we have focused a lot on

phone calls. in our debate about these authorities, when certainly the internet piece is also significant. there was if the report concerning 702 authority of the fisa amendment act, general warrants for the collection of international communications, including u.s. to international and international to u.s. one thing surprising is they did not really talk about the use of this for a separate security purpose, which is, at a time, recently a pair of that they were using it for that. as of 2011, there were something like 250 million internet communications being gathered every year. the current number is significantly higher. we're talking billions of internet communications being gathered about foreigners but

also significant amounts of u.s. person information. we know that a number of american muslim lawyers and civil rights leaders, whose e-mails have been targeted word specific collection, not as part of these old collection programs we know that until 2011, there was bulk collection of internet metadata being done that is being shifted onto other authorities at this point. under the fisa amendments act there are something like 90,000 foreign targets, meaning persons and e-mail addresses that are being passed for collection. that will be internet accounts. that is certainly the largest piece of the puzzle, just because there is more internet activity than phone activity and it is easier to search that quickly because that tends to be

more structured data. host: from texas, kathy. good morning. caller: good morning. i am ex army/navy. best i know that you talk spy agency. john bush's blows allen 90% government contracts were spying on americans before 9/11. george bush handed them drones, spying to the utah spy agency. he had the original anthrax suspect, whose son was ceo of seamen -- zmen. you do not show the drone victims, our military sacrifices, you do not show

fallujah which is 10 times worse than hiroshima. the bush family, walker side, they have a prison program. they are collecting phone conversations, skype, texts, hotel bills, toll roads, we are the kgb with limitless power. john roberts gets to select all 11 pfizer judges -- fisa judges. he helped jeb bush lopp fordo with ted cruz -- host: you let our guest respond. guest: there is a bunch and we will only focus to others. she mentions of aic, which is a major intelligence contractor. there is a book called "spies for hire" of that came out some years before. it discusses the influence of the intelligence contractors on

the process. you often see the government handing out multi-tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars contracts to a handful of agencies with limited dating. i know it fdic is involved in a case like this involving a program called trailblazer where they have a huge amount of money to build a program, we'll go over budget, will not work and after they have to cancel it because they have given up, they initiate a successor and the same company will get the contract. not to impugn motivations much but if you look at the most fierce defenders of intelligence activities and congress, they tend to be the biggest recipients of donations from intelligence contractors. you have a powerful axis of companies that profit from the expansion of surveillance and

have access to legislators to encourage the expansion of surveillance programs and play up the effectiveness of surveillance programs that may be questionable. she mentioned the fisa court. the foreign intelligence 11 judges elected entirely by john roberts. that is a unique situation. in general, we know federal courts judges are appointed and confirmed by the legislature whereas the fisa court is 11 people chosen by the chief justice of the supreme court. some folks have pointed out that tends to limit the ideological diversity. there have been majority republicans over that time. all of the current judges have been chosen by john roberts. if you look at the decisions that have been declassified and released by the government, to their credit -- usually they

have been compelled by freedom of information laws, that is -- but is sometimes done more voluntarily, you see a willingness to defer to what the justice department wants what the intelligence agencies say are necessary or helpful, evening involving large-scale collection of americans. and the legal argument you may not see if you had a more diverse group of judges. they have done research on panels of judges and how they vote ideologically. what you find is, let's say you classify them into republican and democratic judges, that a democratic judge on a majority republican panel will vote more like a republican and a republican and a democratic

majority. even if you have more democrats or more skeptical people in the mix, they are chosen for being sympathetic to intelligence. that being the majority attitude, tends to shape the attitude of the court as a whole. that is compounded by the secrecy. you are creating an almost echo chamber. you take a group select the for a leaning favorable to the intelligence community and then you immunize them from all the mechanisms that normally provide feed active judges. routine review by other courts, the ability to challenge them. even academics writing long review articles and saying what an opinion this was and how this departs from president -- from presidents. this is a recipe for creating a cloister group that will easily pass easily become detached from what the rest of the legal profession may call common sense.

host: still from maine, go ahead. caller: i do not think i have heard anybody give out any sort of dissertation on the nsa collecting all this metadata. they have been doing it for years. since it is going to go back to the phone companies, i do not see any information about how many people we fired out of the nsa. i have relatives in the tc area. you guys are exploding. you have jobs on top of jobs. you have congressmen and senators who no longer respond to the people but respond to major corporations. like the presidential thing going on now, hillary makes a speech -- there is not enough to thousand dollars bonus in her room so ring in a couple more $2000 bonus. bush and the rest are looking for big money. i do not want any more bushes or clinton's. i want dr. carson.

that is off subject. but right now, we're collecting tons of ada and there is no recourse on that data from a citizen of this country. the government has total control over what is going on. we are in the dark all the time. take, for example -- people come across our southern border every day. someone has to carry 152 pound rucksack full of drugs. what stops them from carrying 250 pounds of explosives? what stops them from carrying a bomb? we do not stop anything. we have illegals in this country, the irs goes after the tea party. host: phil from maine. we let our guest respond. guest: immigration is not my

area of expertise. in terms of accountability, i think the nsa is estimated to have around 30,000 employees, i believe, but that is classified. in terms of accountability, it is rare you find someone fired for doing something inappropriate. james clapper still got his office after -- without too much ability to lie to congress about large-scale collection about americans. one of the interesting questions posed by the passage of the usa freedom act earlier is what happens to the lawsuit in the second circuit, the court of appeals, which asked the parties to the lawsuit that had ruled the book telephone program illegal -- bulk telegram program unlawful to brief them on what

the effect of the usa freedom act is. does it render the lawsuit know because congress will change the law? or is there still the relevant question of what happens to existing data? under this program and its now temporary defense but they will start it up one last time for another six months of collection before they transition to a model where the telephone carriers are keeping their own information and they make specific request, but there is still five years of archived data in the hands of the government about people's calls. the question is what happens to that? in terms of citizens having recourse, it is conceivable that the second circuit will order that data to be purged on the grounds it was obtained unlawfully. obtained using an authority that did not permit collection on the scale the nsa was engaged in.

i would expect that to be something the government fights fiercely if the court is prepared to consider it. host: pennsylvania, chuck on the line for julian sanchez of the cato institute. caller: good morning. i do not have a problem with them collecting my information but i do not understand why they do not use it. do get calls from foreign countries and stuff, saying they are the fbi and all this stuff. the operation is going every day in these countries, i assume. why do we not use the data to catch these guys? help the american people and set its use them? guest: which guysguest:? caller: people from nigeria calling to say there from the fbi and you have a $300 fine or whatever -- guest: you mean like scams. i will say that contrary to the intention, that is one of the dangers of programs like this.

you begin with large-scale collections justified because it is just for terrorism. for an important purpose. the most sacred charge of the federal government. then, as long as you have the data, why not use it to catch e-mail scammers and fraud stirrers and drug dealers and tax cheats and child pornographers. name another crime that is prominent in the media and suddenly usage of that data that you never would have consented to upfront, you never would have said this is a justification for this kind of large-scale spying, become the norm. one of the things said the had validity to it is saying i do not care if they look of my information, i have nothing to hide, is like saying i do not care about free speech, i have nothing to say. it does not matter if you do not

mind them looking at your stuff the question is what is the effect on society wanted look at everyone's stuff. i am pretty pale and not that worried about racial discrimination targeted against me i think we are all affected when people are chilled by fears that they are under government surveillance. right now -- in the future, it could be occupied type groups, or tea party type groups. it is, i think, a position of privilege to say, i'm am not worried, i have nothing to hide. the fact is that i am confident

enough that the power of the state will not oppress me. it is good you can feel confident about that, by don't think you can be unconcerned about people who may. host: you mention edward snowden. he has an op-ed in "the new york times" today. he says that we are witnessing an emergence -- that for the first time since the attacks of 9/11, we see the outline of politics that turns away from reaction and fear in favor of resilience and reason. do you agree with that statement? guest: that may be a little more optimistic than i think. i think we have seen a sea change, both in polling data. you can say there was a very broad populace vote for reforming the page act, but also in the end of the unquestioned

effectiveness of the scaremongering. it is very obvious if you look at what has happened in the senate -- over the past week and two weeks -- mitch mcconnell believes that the strategy is extremely effective in the past, and it will work again. we have seen previous reauthorization of provisions like the patriarchs when it was set to expire, and another act when it was set to expire. they wait until very close to the expiration date -- they did not have to be talking about keystone and trade promotion authority for so many months -- they could have talked about the patriarch sooner. and, waiting until the 11th hour, they say, we would love to have a wholesome debate and look at reforms and authorities, but gosh, we are so close to the

deadline. if we don't reauthorize us without changes, and move on the terrorists will kill us all. the time to debate these authorities will have to wait for some other time. some other time keeps not coming. this time, it did not happen. they had a brief sunset, that was largely symbolic, but it shows that congress was willing to let that happen. at least some members of congress were more determined to havee is figures -- to have a serious debate than two at all cost avoid any expiration. it shows that we are not scared of the dark anymore. we are determined to fight terrorism and protect yourself but not prepared to stop asking questions, rollover, give the intelligence community whenever asked for -- whatever it asks

for. it was a very strange situation where the intelligence community itself said, sure, we can accept the usa freedom act, we do not need to be totally unrestricted to be able to do what we need to do, and you have the senate saying, we do not care what they say. they are wrong about much authority they need. a classic case of the pentagon say they don't need a bomber, but the center whose district is building them says, you do. we promise. host: thank you for your time. author mubin shaikh is next. he is author of "undercover jihadi."

he joins is next. then, a discussion on efforts by the transgender community to enact legal protections. our program continues after this. ♪ >> he said that is made from the bark off the tree that we pick from the top down. that is made from the bark that we take from the rue up -- root up. [no audio] the only difference i have found between the democratic leadership in the replicant leadership is that one was from the ankle up and the other was

from the year down. >> that clip was a great example of appealing to the masses. ultimately, i think like a lot of characters, he became concerned with his own power and was consumed by that. >> he was a maverick. he gave as much grief to his own party as opposition party. the senate has always needed mavericks, because they are the east, but if they are all mavericks, nothing would get done. we were fortunate that the qa longs have been a distinct minority in the institution. >> senate historian and former house historian on the history of the house and senate. the stories scandals. sunday on "q&a."

, "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from toronto canada is mubin shaikh. he is the author of the book "undercover jihadi." tell us valuable, why did you write a? guest: hello. i really wanted to put the message out for really, other mothers -- other young muslims. to put take the book up and hopefully see themselves in it. for people to see what happens to people. there were multiple reasons for doing it. host: you talk about your own adoption of radical ideas. tells about your story. how did you get to that point? guest: i went to public school during the daytime. it was a very mixed environment.

very caring, nurturing environment. as opposed to in the evening, i would go to koran school. it was like the indian or pakistani system where boys and girls were separated. you sit in front of wooden benches, not understanding of word of what you are reading. if you made a mistake, you were slapped. this severe contrast, i believe late of foundation for an identity crisis that would manifest later on in life. when i got to high school, i wasn't picked on or bullied. i was one of the cool kids. we were part of the in crowd, so to speak. i had a house party, and my house party -- and my father was out of the country. he told his brother, my uncle to check on the house while he

was gone. of course, in the middle of the house party, my uncle walked in. i was 17 years old. a teenager, it was the end of the world for me. i was shamed into feeling so bad about what i had done, i convinced myself that the only way i could make amends with my family was to quote unquote get religious. to do that, i went to india and pakistan on a four-month religious trip. while i was in pakistan, i had a chance encounter with the taliban. that is where i was the by the jihadi bug, as i call it, and became a supporter of both the taliban and al qaeda after that. host: if you want to talk to the guest about his experience and thoughts arise as asian, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 745-8002.

for muslim americans who want to ask our guest questions, (202) 748-8003. take us back to pakistan, the expense with the taliban. what happened and what influence do so much? guest: this was summer 1995. i had gone to a place called -- at that time, it was a stronghold of the taliban. later on, it became the nerve center for the taliban and the ruling council. when i showed up, i had no understanding of politics of the region. i did not know who the taliban were. i was not really paying attention to a lot of what was going on. i had heard stories of the region. there was a war from 1995.

i was walking about the area and the group that i had gone with was an apolitical religious group. they encouraged other muslims to be more religious. the idea was that the more you fast, the more you pray, god will bring about change in the world. so, walking around the area, i could see bearded men with turbans, ropes, and i grew nearer to them, thinking they were religious people. and i realize, they were armed. they had a lot of weaponry on them. a guy like me at that moment, coming from the background that i came from, seeking validation in the islamic context, seeking some sort of islamic persona that would resonate with me, i was young and infringers, and saw these guys, and that was it. for a lot of people even up to

today, look upon these groups as heroes from the days of old. you read about the stories -- and now, here i am. i became completely enamored by them. they presented to me a category of hero that i could buy into, so to speak. host: you talked about this and wrote about in your book, that military sense was only taught as a necessary evil of life unlike how terrorist groups like isis now teach. tell us about what you learned about the topic of jihad, and how you think it is practiced today. guest: the little meeting means struggle. when it is applied in the context of combat, when you

struggle in combat, or struggles regarding your family, you personally, that is what jihad means. when you are struggling in war or in a combat situation, this is the secondary meaning of jihad. for all intensive purposes, when you here jihad, it is referring to the combat form. in arabic, in the koran, another word means fighting. jihad doesn't mean fighting, a main struggle, but is used in the context of fighting. this is what i learned. the taliban told me, in 19 a five, when you want to bring about change you have to use this. he held up his ak-47. as far as they were concerned, jihad -- whether you frame out

of the doctors self-defense or offense of warfare, this is really the understanding of jihad. i just want to finish out the point by saying that jihad is a war tradition. it is a legitimate war tradition with rules of ethics and rules of engagement. what people do today in the name of jihad is not jihad, it is terrorism. host: mubin shaikh, he is the author of "undercover jihadi." our first call for you is john. john is in massachusetts on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: hi. yes. i don't know if you know this or not. i'm not that religious, but you might be. there was an article, and actually a court case, about one of your people.

a woman who worked for abercrombie & fitch. she sue them because of her religion. she was there for five years and they told her when things were unfair -- i noticed that you have a crucifix on your person. the next time you come back to work, i want you to hide your crucifix. and she said i cannot do that. to make a long story short, she sue the company -- sued the company, it went to the supreme court, and she won. the only negative vote was clarence thomas. i don't know what your background is in religion, but if you worked for abercrombie & fitch, would you have sued the company? guest: if we are going to live in a society that extols the

virtues of religious freedom and that religious freedom is taken away, and you are at a workplace, and lose your job because they are forcing you to choose between your faith and your job they are going to be responsible for that. i would certainly take the opportunity to teach them a lesson. host: let's try an apple maryland. independent line. nick, you're next. caller: good morning. i had a specific question about the tenets of islam and the muslim religion that led you first to justifying the jihadist theory, and what tenants of the religion led you to refute. where did the shift in perspective comment. guest: i would give even algae that religion is like a hammer. you can either build a home with it or destroy a home with it. it really does come down to the perspective you have. the worldview that you hold.

in the beginning when i was young, angry, looking for an identity, some of venture, for me, it was the idea of being cool. i fell into it because i haven't really had any religious training, but yet, i came to believe what the taliban told me because they looked cool. they were obviously religious people. they had beers and turbans, so i thought, they are religious people, which is not the case but that is how i thought. when i went to syria in 2002 after the 9/11 attacks, and study the religion properly, you learn the rules of interpretation. you did not just pick up the book and start reading. i studied how to interpret the book. the historical context. the literal meaning of words. that contextual understanding of the religion is what got me out

of it. i would say a more superficial emotional aspect is what got me into it. and i would say that is what gets a lot of people into it today. the more intellectual approach got me out of it. host: you were led in a moderate in helping you understand what the koran said. guest: yes. my oldest son, his name is majority -- he was born in 1999. in the arab world, they call you abu, which is father, so father of your child's name. when i answered that i was father of my son, they asked are you a jihadi? and i said, yes i was. and this person started challenging me on my knowledge

of the word. he said, let's follow up on this after the class. he study, we will study the verses of jihad. he knew i was from canada and i would go back to canada, so he wanted to educate me. i spent almost two years with this in mind -- iman. we studied every verse in the koran the hat of this verse of fighting and construction eyes it -- and contextualize it. host: hussein from jamaica, new york. thank you for calling. caller: good morning, sir. brother, i have one question. about 1000 years ago someone asked a question.

he said, god has chosen you. [indiscernible] what options do the palestinians have? what is the difference between systems?

jefferson said, give me liberty or give me death. help me. our grandchildren, our grandchildren. do they have any option left? i am the last person -- i was eight years old and i saw hindi and muslim women brutalized in pakistan and india. help me. what options do muslims have? what happened in the central african countries. what options do muslims have? host: all right. we want to let our guest respond. you are giving him a lot of questions. we will let him respond. guest: thank you. the point was about the crusades

. when you have these grievances what do you do about it? the rule of law is very important for us to frame our responses within. even in the time of the crusades, when some of the abuses were taken place, solid and -- he did not return that kind of violence. for example, one of the things where the christian crusaders withrow dead, rotting corpses over the walls, in hopes of infecting people, biological warfare. muslims were always told that they did not respond with the same violence. this is based on a saying that says, do not allow your dislike for a nation to allow you to be just us -- to be unjust. this is also based on a profit

that says, there is no harming or reciprocating of harm. our responses must be framed under the rule of law. on the other hand, even in the international system of the rule of law, there is the rule of self-defense. if you're being a victim from your home, persecuted because you believe in one god, then you can fight. this is something that is in the koran. permission is given to you to fight. those who evicted from your home and persecute you because you say god is one. in the worldly context, it is called the law of self-defense. if whoever's coming and killing you, you are allowed to fight. host: paul on our line for muslim americans. the morning. -- good morning. caller: i'm going to tell you

something. i have read the koran 10,000 if not 20,000 times. i'm going to tell you this now. mohammed was a terrorist. he wanted to be a terrorist. read the koran. he said he is going to do whatever he has to do. you either become a muslim, or you die. guest: i read the koran in arabic and the prophet mohammed is not quoted in it even one time. meaning, he does not say "i" anything. host: from john in illinois for our guest. john, thank you for holding on. go ahead. caller: hello. guest: hi, john. caller: hello. yes. my comment is that humility and purity and chastity is love for

god. the federalist papers mention article number eight 11, and number 64, which pertains to america. i believe that this is completely contradictory to reality. if you read the federalist papers, the american revolution was based on letters eight 11, and 64. they say that the unity in america is a mentality, and the

revolution was based on this mentality. we lost this mentality, and we have to rollback to the mentality of the 1787 constitution. host: all right, thanks. off of twitter, interviewer asked, what is militant islam's beef with america specifically? or, what is their problem with america specifically? guest: right. you have to frame it in a historical context. i certainly don't put the blame on the u.s. alone.

the sunni-shiite divide has been there for years. you can't really blame them for that. really, if you look in the recent history, you can go back -- let's say we go back to 195 15. tasubsequently, in one decade, if you look at the decades after that, -- i understand, the u.s. approach. it is not really any different from the muslim approach. this is of a the muslims to pay attention to. we were also colonialist and imperialist. it is funny for me to see muslims criticizing what the u.s. does. there is criticism for both of us.

coups in iran, setting a proxy groups -- in afghanistan, it was the british russian, soviets. the problem is that they see with the u.s. is doing, propping up dictators, dictators have been suppressed, dumb the societies down, and then we point at the societies and say they are not able to do anything, it must be because of their religion. that is a false conclusion. saddam hussein came to power by a coup. gaddafi came to power because of a coup. the u.s. is politicking, it is doing geopolitics the others have not done. that is what takes them off. host: hattiesburg, mississippi.

curtis, you are next. caller: i want to ask a question. someone got on and try to explain the dues and the don'ts of the religion. i think it is a misconception that everyone is wrong about these people. host: ok. guest: if i understood the point correctly -- look, we cannot make generalizations about any group. i used to do this. i used to do this to christians, to jews, to hindus, buddhists you name it. i had a generalization. then, i met them and talk to them. i may not necessarily agree with all points of doctrine but if i'm dealing with the person who has a good attitude and character, i don't care what you believe. i will judge you based on your character. host: you were recruited in one

way. what do you say in the modern-day about recruitment? specifically, using social media to recruit followers. guest: i'm just about to be 40. i'm that old that i can say i was around in the early 90's when it was still yahoo! chat aol chat, and that was the first exposure to social networking that i had. it is vastly different than then. what you are seeing is the idea that you don't even have to get out of your home to develop a social network. develop an intimate relationship with people who can influence you in ways that really people only realize can do that. that is the main difference that i see from back then to today.

the rate at which people can interact with the other -- with one another i mean, you can talk to people from all corners of the globe. i really think that social media plays a very large role in not only creating new dynamics related to recruitment radicalization, but a completely new experience of human interaction. host: robber from chicago illinois. you are on with our guest. caller: i just have a, in regards to a lot of the problems are hostilities that americans have towards muslims. we see christians getting beheaded. soldiers getting dragged through the streets of the belt use. people formm an opinion based on what they see going on in the middle east.

we go over and try to help these people, and still, these people want to kill one another, and have been for thousands of years. we get fed up with that whole deal. the muslims will cry racism being told ever coming fits the have to wear certain close, even though they sell closethes to young kids. we hear race baiting under obama and his whole geopolitics that you mentioned is totally correct. we over -- we are over there because of oil and contracts. that is my main comment. that is the problem that people have with muslims, in regards to them killing one another and killing christians in the middle east. we are try to help these people unite and go back to democracy.

we are sitting back here in the united states -- as a veteran i'm seeing this, and get frustrated. we are forced to adopt their religion and their way of life when they should be assimilating to our way of life. it is ridiculous. this is the united states, not the middle east. if we went there trying to push religion, we would get killed. people have gotten killed. guest: that is a good comment. i really don't blame a lot of americans, given what they see being done in the name of islam. if i had not grown up in the islamic faith, or been exposed to what i was exposed to, i would think that islam is a barbaric religion. i would be very hard pressed to figure out how these people are

worshiping god. i knowledge that. this is largely because of what people do in the name of islam. that is number one. the perception that people have is based on extremism, a violent manifestation of the religion. we don't -- for example, lucy is walking down the street, and she slipped on a banana paeal, and we blame lucy, but is because of the banana. this goes back to the argument that if you're going to empower dictators, don't blame the religion. it is the dictators that are dumbing the people down. if you look at islam in various times in history, the theologicians where the

scientists. it is false to say that the muslim world cannot do it, it is because of the religion. it has a situational attribution to it. the last point, you're right. if u.s. is going to go there to force religion, that is the same thing with democracy. you cannot force a society to come to a system of governance that does not resonate with them. that is the problem. we need to develop mechanisms that resonate with their sacred values. host: to still reach out to those with a radical mindset, so to speak? what is the reaction you get? guest: i do it all the time. the reaction is within a spectrum. the reaction is that you are not

a real muslim, you are a sellout. others say, i don't trust you, but you make sense. the other category is those who end up listening. i have been dealing with a lot of people who have been of the mindset that i have helped to bring away from that mindset. i've brutally honest sometimes. i think people like that. especially young people. they feel alienated. they are marginalized. they see all around them that everybody hates islam. when you see people making cartoons and mopping -- mocking our profits, and you flip the script and say does racism. you can't say there is freedom of siege and insult people's most sacred views, and then when

it insult something of yours you say, it is not free speech in this case. these are things that young people are saying and try to make sense of. they are not able to make sense of it or they struggle. host: when you mentioned cartoons of mohammed. when you see violence that stems out from that, what initially goes through your mind? would you call it justified? guest: it is never justified. what goes through my mind is how does this help our cause? the paris attacks. what happened with that -- it was a struggling publication, they were making fun of everyone, and then these guys shot them out, and their subscriptions went up 500%. i take the utilitarian approach. i detach the images. it breaks my heart to see that. i don't insult people's fa iths.

the koran says, do not insult their gods unless they insult to god out of ignorance. the approach they take with violence is counterproductive. host: "undercover jihadi" is the book by mubin shaikh. we would hear from betty. caller: good morning. i have a quick question about a passage in the koran. i'm paraphrasing. it is where you pretend to befriend your enemies so you can get in there and, i guess, do them harm or take advantage. would you please tell me how that is not relevant? sometimes i think, are these people really your friends? or, are they going by the section of the koran? guest: thank you betty.

i like to hear your north carolina drawl. the concept that that he is referring to is -- which is courtesy of some of the muslim haters out there who want to dictate the muslims as always lying. and, if they are shaking your hand with one hand, they have a dagger in the other hand waiting to get you. there is no passage actually teaches this. this comes from the statements of the profitet, and refers to the classical oxidation that if you fear bodily harm or death because you believe in god then

you are allowed to deny that you believe in god. this is what christians do, jews did, and muslims did when people were persecuting each other. when the romans were persecuting the christians they denied their faith. or, in the new testament, where peter denies knowing jesus christ. that is the traditional classical understanding of this. in the operational context, it is what in the west we called denial and deception. a spy does not tell people who he is. there are varying levels of it. the idea that operationally people up to no good are going to operationalize that concept and say here, i'm not allowed to deny my faith ignoring that

my life is not in danger. there is no license to go round lying to people. people abuse that in this context. i would say, just a close that point, what was i doing when i was telling guys that i was one of them, but i wasn't? that is a level of denial and deception that i think would be acceptable. there is a whole spectrum. host: because you brought up the topic of spying, a little bit about your book. after your mindset change, you went to canada, and ended up working for the canadian government looking out for those who might be radicals. can you give us a short history? guest: after went to the tell bad -- taliban in 19i-5, i kept that up until the 9/11 attacks. i will be honest.

i initially celebrated the 9/11 attacks. as the events went on, i thought to myself, something is not right about this. i get attacking combatants, but flying a plane into the building, innocent people, how do you claim that? i went to syria and study for two years, got out of my mindset, realize how bad it was over there, and came back to canada. you remember the koran school that referred to earlier. a guy had been arrested in 2004. he was the kid who sat next to me in the school. i approach the security intelligence services to give a character reference. by then, it was too late. the intelligence service was a interested in speaking to me. we chatted for about 1.5 hours or two hours, and they put to me the prospect of working for them to be undercover operative and

tell them who i thought would be a threat. i accepted and i did that for 1.5 years. i conducted several infiltration operations. i did some things online. later on in 2005, 1 of those cases became a public prosecution. i was given the option, either you walk away from it, or you follow through, and you will be in court giving testament, your cover will be blown. i thought to myself, this is doing the right thing, let me follow through with that. my identity was exposed. i gave testimony in five legal hearings. i faced a lot of backlash, i was ostracized. this is a problem you deal with in the u.s.. there is a lot of mistrust.

you can see from the boston case that just happened a couple of days ago, there is no trust. there is a severe lack of trust. i had to navigate through the states. in that time, i did a masters degree in the leasing -- policing. i went from the spectrum of been there, done that, to now, i still consult with government but i take a pro-islamic approach and a anti-terrorism approach. caller: good morning. a few points. never one, god bless the american constitution. i have been to turkey, lebanon egypt. there is no country like the united states. i am to the right of libertarian. next to my friend, i was born

and raised syrian. he should do fine jihad. jihad is struggling to put bread on the table. number two. please give me time. the late bob novak and pat cannon -- that buchanan they said, now that the soviet union is gone, they look for a new enemy. they set up the muslim war. number three. i came from turkey to egypt. egypt is dirty, poor, and corrupt. you give egypt $100 billion and is gone in a second. number four. turkey is rising like germany. the west, especially france, they do not want democracy in the middle east. they are hypocrites.

you know what, i was born muslim. i am agnostic. i love the jews. i could raise a nazi flag, but that is bad and folder. i am protected by freedom of expression. the united states is the best country in the world because of george washington. my profit george washington gives me rights. i'm neither anglo-saxon nor christian. host: we have to let your guests -- the guest respond. guest: it is a good sentiment that he expressed. the u.s. constitution is a great document. i would say that you are in competition with the canadian

one. we will tolerate you for now. host: from virginia don. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to get the understanding that the koran says that the muslims should not fight against those who do not fight against you. you should not harm the elderly plants, or animals. i do not understand the justification that anyone can say they are a muslim or study the koran for a hot minute, and then, particularly in this country, -- those who follow mohammed, he did not do those things.

i don't understand. killing another muslim, you go straight to hell. to me, the man is crazy. to celebrate 9/11 -- at one time i follow the religion. there are so many things that turned me off. 9/11 was one of the main ones. there are other things in the religion that i had a problem with. i respect islam, but there are a lot of ignorancts. we don't have a camel. we have cars. i wanted to know, what is your response to the ignorant followers of these radicals? guest: that is a good question. really, if it was based off the example of muslims, i wouldn't

be a muslim myself. i am a muslim only because of the religion itself, and what i understand from the religion. it pains me to see what muslims do in the name of religion. complete ignorance. breaking the rules. we have to look at things in the context. 1400 years ago, the koran was speaking in its context. it would make no sense for god to mention internet 1400 years ago. they talked about slaves camels. that is the kind of life that they live. the mistakes that i think muslims make is thinking that we need to replicate society from the 700 and doesn't -- in desert arabia. i totally agree with you. i understand why people think the way they think. all i can say is it is important for them to understand real islam. host: the book says that you are

married, you have children. how do you talk to them about your experiences and current issues and considering moderate muslims? guest: i'm very open with my children. i have had this conversation with them. my oldest is 15. my youngest will be seven. i have five children. i'm putting them through a form of social engineering. two of them are in the army cadets. i think you call them army explorers. i raising them with the values of duty. i give that a holistic understanding of religion. i told them that used to be a government agent. my job was to stop bad muscles from doing that things. the prophet said, support your brother when he is the oppressor and when he is the oppressed.

the companion replied, we understand to support him when he is oppressed, but what you mean support him when he is the oppressor? it means, stop him when he here presents. i don't make any excuses. i don't apologize for what i did. extremism is against the religion, and is ruining the name of islam. i will not apologize fro for stopping people. host: from pennsylvania, ernst. good morning. caller: i am sitting here, i look at c-span all the time. thank you, pedro, for being a host. i really enjoyed your comets is morning regarding islam. i'm 60 years old.

i became a muslim when i was 40. the thing to everything you have said today has done the muslims in this country a great service. may allah guide you. thank you so much. guest: thank you very much. host: from new york, here is anthony. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i'm really enjoying your guest this morning. my question to you is how do your parents feel about your endeavors today? and the opposite -- authorship of your book? thank you. guest: amassed -- ai laugh because my 10 euros he says to me -- 10-year-old, he said to

me, you lost your virginity in the army cadets. it was the most awkward moment for me. he read the book, and even my parents read the book. that was the point. i wanted to lay everything out there. once upon a time, my parents wanted me to her then i got to religious, and they did not like that. now, they are extremely happy and very proud of me that i have come full circle, or even doubt as i say. i'm happy about that. honor thy mother and a father. it is good. host: because of the mines that you hold and the past expenses with the government, has your life been threatened? do you feel that you or your family are stucco guest: -- you or your family are? guest: i get threats from time

to time. i don't completely dismiss and deny it. i know people are watching me and seeing what i'm up to, online anyway. it is possible that some of could make a move at some point. i think i that nothing is happened so far. i hope it will continue that way. i think about it. i understand that this is a risky area that i'm involved in. i have faith in god. i take precautions as much as possible, as much as lawful in canada. host: dallas, texas. bob. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question on mohammed, when he was standing in the desert. and the spirit, more or less comes to him. he says his people were starving , and he said, pick up the

sword. he attacked the jews at the time for food. what is the difference between him and someone going down the street and saying, i want that tv, so i will just take it. in other words, a thug. guest: i don't recognize that account. i don't know where that came from. the islamic story is that the prophet was meditating in a cave. the angel gabriel came to him and said, read. he said, i can't read. there was no instruction to pick up a sword. host: athens, ohio. you are on with our guest. caller: i would like to give a comment. i'm 86 years old, world war ii window. -- widow.

we have religions, lots of them here in the united states. we have methodist, at the scope alien -- episcopali. an another thing, we are living in a communist state right now. we have a republican party who wants to rule the united states and eventually ruled the world. they are on the russian side. the koch brothers give money to buy a president. we were half an inch from having a dictator, george w. bush. we realized that everything was going wrong way. now, they have suppressed are voting. the democrats are on the low side.

it is all about money and oil. there is a fight going on here right now in our country. host: this is earl from maryland. go ahead. caller: good morning. i preface this by saying -- i have not read your book, but how do you deal with the hypocrisy about the right to freedom of speech to draw cartoons of the prophet mohammed, but if you as a community do cartoons about jews killing jesus -- you know which was a historical fact, would that be considered free speech or would it be considered anti-semitic? guest: this is the thing, you have to identify as hypocritical. you can't encourage people to internalize these values of freedom of speech, and then not apply them equally across the

board. the problem is that people will see through that right away. your question was how do i deal with that. i recognize that humans -- we are humans. we will make mistakes. we always try to realize the ideals, but often we fall short. i recognize the human connection -- human condition. where i can speak out about it i do that. host: here is the last call. jonah from -- joanna from maryland. caller: after 9/11 -- i'm a loser and -- lutheran. after 9/11, i realized i knew nothing about islam. about four years ago, there was a big billboard outside the mosque that said islam 101.

a couple of us from our church to the class. i learned so much. it is spelled a lot of myths -- dispelled a lot of myths. i made a lot of friends.

declare other muslims as non-muslims, thereby -- justice against them. revealing -- upon the muslims so declaring them as infidels, this kind of approach, making war on anyone for any reason, for small reasons. so this is what you see isis doing. they are referred to at them as the dogs of hell, the worst creatures under the heavens and earth. wherever you find them, kill them. so, these kind of groups, the prophet has castigated them in the worst manner possible. and this is something for people to look into because when people say, oh, isis is quoting the koran, they pray, well, yes, the prophet says that these people will come in the garb of islam

but they will falsify the meanings of the koran and deceive the people. host: mubin shaikh, thank you for your time today. guest: thank you very much. god bless. host: our last segment will take a look at the issues that are important to the transgender community. mara keisling will join us next as our guest. but first, this weekend on both c-span2 and 3, a look at lincoln, nebraska for its literary and historic context. the mayor of the state capital city talking about the city's relationship with this they government. [video clip] >> lincoln nebraska is almost in the very middle of the country. certainly, people would describe

it as being in the midwest. it is not far north or far self. -- south. right in the middle. it is just the fact that we stole the capital from -- back in the early days of this date, there was constant discussion about where the capital should be. and there is -- there was a long quarrel. but lincoln one. the city's relationship with the state capital is -- first of all , i think a very positive relationship. we're proud of being the state capital. we love the capital building, we love the people coming in to our capital and operating in a uniquely democratic way, in a sense that we have the only unicameral legislature in the country. and that means one chamber, not a house and a senate, but just they senate.

and it operates very well. it also is designed to operate in a nonpartisan manner. it is a nonpartisan legislature. your party affiliation is not identified on the ballot. obviously, there -- there are some partisan politics here, as everyplace else. but it is highly deemphasized. and i think we are in a better place, in that regard. and i think the people of the city love it. of course, it is both important to it happens in the state. and it is good entertainment. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is mara keisling . good morning. guest: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thank you very much.

we have heard a lot about the term transgender this week. what is technically a transgender person? guest: a transgender person is somebody whose identity, how they express the internal senses , is different than what you would expect from somebody based on what the doctor said when he slept them on the behind when their firstborn. host: how many are in the united dates? guest: we don't know for sure, we think about one million. host: one of the aspects of your organization is dealing with the quality issues. when it comes to a list of issues of equality for transgender people, what are they? guest: discrimination, violence. we have about a transgender person per month murdered in the united states just for being transgendered. job discrimination, access to health care, access to id documents that shows we really

are so that you don't get hassled or hurt when you have to produce id. host: so talk a little bit about more about that. what do you mean about that? guest: well, most people take their drivers license for granted. the gender marker fits who they appear to be. for trans people, it has been harder to get id who matches who they are. since 9/11, it is so much more important to have a good idea in the united states. and consisted from one form of id to another. host: at a goes further than drivers licenses? guest: passports, birth certificates, government ids military discharge papers, a lot of different ids. thinks it wouldn't think about. medicare cards have a gender marker on them. host: what protection specifically applies to the transgender person? guest: more and more, we are getting -- we are hearing courts

interpret sex discrimination laws to say that if you discriminate against a transgender person, it is because of their sex. you don't think they are the right kind of man or right can of woman. so we believe it is legal to discriminate against trans people. i think we have a little more work legislatively and administratively to do and litigation wise to do before that is actually cemented in your -- in. host: what is happening on the state and local levels tackle -- levels? guest: when we started, about 4% of the country's population lived in jurisdiction that had state or local protection. we have almost 20 states that have stayed exquisite loss that protect gender identity -- have stayed explicit -- state explicit laws that protect

gender identity. host: if you want to ask our guest questions, the four mines are available. transgender viewers can call and get the experiences. we divide the lines partisan, but is this a partisan issue? are the people on both sides of the aisle working for this tackle -- this? guest: absolutely. one party has been more favorable towards us than the other, but that is becoming increasingly less true as more and more families have transgender kids or even gay or bisexual kids. that is how families are really learning about this. and that is how we are teaching people who go to school with us, who go to the school -- church or the mosque with us. host: when it comes to the rights issue, one of the things i read over and over was the issue of -- what is going on? guest: it is kind of puzzling.

i think people kind of think we are -- forget we are human. we had to use public restrooms. it is just that simple. and the easiest way to do that -- and the right way to do that -- is for me, for instance, to use the women's room. and for a transgender man someone born female and becomes a man or becomes identifying as a man and may have a beard, we want him in the men's room. we, as a society, want him in the mentor. i don't mean me personally. it is something that i think people aren't yet familiar with, but it has been going on for decades. we have had city and local laws that protect trans people's writes. host: but there are lawsuits considering -- concerning this. guest: sure. but we are waiting all of those.

you know, nothing in any of these laws would allow anybody to do anything in the bathrooms. anybody who does anything illegal in the bathrooms, they have done something illegal. if they haven't done anything illegal, i think everybody should just leave everybody alone in the bathrooms. host: and talk about the work about the agency that deals with work. guest: the eoc has been a really important part of the trends toward clarifying sex discrimination laws to protect transgender people. the logic is pretty simple. you wouldn't expect the judge to say, you were fired for converting from catholicism to judaism, so that is not religious discrimination. but judges used to say that. they would say, you are fired from converting from a man to a woman. and judges and now the eeoc and

the u.s. department of justice and other agencies have said yes, that doesn't make any sense. if somebody fires you or discriminates against you because of your sex, it is sex discrimination. and they have come up very clearly on that. host: (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents. (202) 748-0003 for for transgender people. on our republican line, you are on with our guest. caller: your guest mentioned in the open that there was no apparent reason for gender to be on a license. that is, like, ridiculous. it is for cops to identify physically the person that they are looking at. it is just amazing to me that because you decide you are not the gender got made you born with -- god made you born with,

nobody is gender. guest: well, thanks, tony. i think you miss her me. i said there is no reason for gender to be on the medicare card. in another few years, i will have a medicare card and it will have an f on it. there is no reason why a doctor's office needs to see that. it doesn't help anything on the card. it has always been there because they were never pictures before. that is why there is a gender marker on drivers licenses. when i got my first license there was no drivers license. so a person -- police officer would need race, age, height and sex on the license. that is not true anymore. the real id that was passed a little more than 10 years ago require states to keep the gender marker on the drivers license. it doesn't really do any good at eventually that will come off. host: let's hear from wayne

next. wayne is in nebraska. go ahead. caller: i am wondering who made the law that taxpayers have to pay for sex changes were people in prison? guest: well, i believe it was, step percent. let me clarify what i mean by that. the eighth amendment to the constitution, which probably jefferson didn't write, it disallows cruel and unusual punishment. over the history of our country we have always always been committed as a country to the notion that denying health care to prisoners was, in fact, cruel and unusual punishment. so if somebody breaks the lake while they are in prison, we set a leg. and more and more, it is unanimous in the medical community that transition related care, including transition related surgeries

is, in fact, good, smart, necessary health care. and as such, our constitution says it is cruel and unusual punishment to deny that to prisoners. that's our constitution. i am a big believer in our constitution. host: are there federal programs that cover transitional surgeries? guest: so, the main federally controlled health care of medicare -- controlled medicare no longer has a national coverage determination that disallows coverage, but in fact, people are not getting medicare currently to pay for surgeries. the same in the veterans administration, there is a regulation that this allows them from conducting or paying for transition related surgeries. and the federal employee health benefits program the office of personnel management is done that telling insurance companies

that they must cover this. so there is not a lot of federal money in use for this at all. if at all. host: employers health insurance, does it covered? guest: 10 years ago, no health plans did. now, more and more are. they know that in order to keep good people, they have to have good health care plans. so, people who do not rely on government funded health care are now more and more a lot better off than people who rely on government. host: what is the cost of transition surgeries? guest: well, it varies a lot. i think a lot of americans think there is something called sex reassignment surgery, when in fact there is a whole array of surgeries. it is different for everybody. there are what we call top surgeries that happen from the top up. there are bottom surgeries which you can figure that out. and then there are a range of them. but we are in a situation now

where we still have, for instance, a transgender man who may need a hysterectomy for not transgender related reasons. a doctor may say, you need a hysterectomy. if the doctor says, the transgender man needs a hysterectomy and his non- transgender female coworker needs a hysterectomy, she may get hers pay for and he may not just because of transgender. and that is discrimination. host: our next call, john. john is from florida. caller: good morning. first question is -- how many transgender citizens are there any united dates -- united states? and if caitlin jenner does not proceed completely with the transgender process, don't you think this is going to be a huge setback? guest: so, we think there is about one third of a percent of the u.s. population is

transgender identified. probably somewhere around 800,000 to one million people. as for caitlin jenner, i don't know what her plans are. i don't think -- well -- i mean i know there is nothing called completing one's transition. it is different for everybody. some people elect to transition socially. jenner has clearly transitioned socially and let everybody know she is a woman, she has a new name, etc.. some people transition legally. some people change medically. but that is also not a clear line all the time. i do not know what medical treatments caitlin jenner has had or does half, and it doesn't matter to me. i think most of america will make their assumptions about what medical treatment she has

accessed. and that is between america and caitlin jenner. host: what has caitlin jenner done for the issue though? guest: oh, what she has done has really been amazing. right after the diane sawyer interview, one of the most amazing things is that news outlets all over the country have been inviting trans people in to tell their story. while caitlin jenner story is just one story, she has created this moment where hundreds or thousands of people are telling their story. and more and more people in america are leading a trans person who they think they knew. obviously, host of us don't and jenna, but a lot of america thinks they know her through her sports life or through her kardashian life. i think it has been an amazing gift she has given us. and i hope it runs a few more months. host: a columnist makes two points. i want to -- want you to respond

to both. the first point, what concerns me here is the media's treatment and the assumption that we all need to be a part of this. guest: yeah, you know, i have personal problems with the whole idea of celebrity culture, but that is actually where we are. my job, as i see it, is to take this cultural moment, which is only happening because of caitlin jenner. if it was just some random person off the street like me, it wouldn't be a big deal. vanity fair wouldn't have put me on the cover. because we live in this celebrity culture, which is vapid and probably harmful in lots of ways, that is what they do. and caitlin jenner is in the middle of that. is intentionally in the middle of that. and i think there are some real positives to that. you know yeah, i don't know why all of america have to be dragged into every celebrity's

everything. host: and the other point goes to your point, saying in stark contrast, all gussied up like some 1940's girl. it seems a mockery of her new womanhood as well as the human dignity. guest: well, i am not, as you can imagine, who they call for comments on fashion magazine culture. so i don't know that i want to comment on that, but what i will say is there are all different kinds of transgender people. there are some glimmers transgender people, and there are some people who can barely eat. we have a germanic -- dramatically high poverty rate. we are four times more likely than the non-transpiration to live on less than $10,000 -- non-trans person to live on less than $10,000 a year. we are more likely to be

homeless. a survey we did five years ago said that 19% of us have been homeless at some point. so caitlin gender -- jenner is not a typical transgender person. but we are just people like everybody else. and so some of us are celebrities. not me. host: mara keisling is with the national center for transgender equality. fred, you are up next. caller: yes, hi. i have a question. i have a son who is transgender. born female. well, we thought. [indiscernible] -- surgically and legally. and has turned out to be a very happy person and we support the heck out of him. love him and support him. but while i was thinking he was extremely happy and

well-adjusted, when we had a conversation, he said, dad, it is not -- well, he said it is not perfect. and not just him, but other people. my question is -- i want to be sensitive and i want to learn. i am old and what things should i stay aware of two best support him? guest: fred, thank you so much. first, let me say i am from harrisburg, right across the river from you. i grew up there. and it is good to hear from somebody from back home. you know, there is a really great group and central pennsylvania. that i would suggest you get involved with. but actually, the most important thing you could possibly do is what you are doing. you are saying, this is my child. this is somebody who i am attached to for life. this is somebody i care about.

this is somebody who i am going to support. is transitioning going to solve all of anybody's problems? no. it is still really hard to be anybody in this life right now. if you are transgender, it is hard to not transition, and it is hard if you do transition. but it makes a really big difference, as you are saying, in your son's life. i would just suggest, meet some good people locally. there is a great lgbt center in harrisburg. with support groups and i think meeting people and getting to know people can help put your situation and your family and better context for you. but the most important thing for everybody, whether they are transgender or not, his family acceptance and family support. host: this is al in las vegas. go ahead. caller: hello. i'm -- i read a book several

years ago. but it goes into the life of a -- a young girl that is -- that she doesn't know, you know, when she becomes an adolescent, she discovers that she doesn't feel like a girl. but she knows she is ago, but the thing is that -- that she doesn't wake up one morning and say, hey, i think i will be a boy or the other way around. a young grow -- or a young boy could wake up -- i mean, he just doesn't like up someday and say hey, i want to be a girl. a person -- and most people don't realize this -- but a person is born with this problem. it is not like -- it is not like they want to be different.

but anyway, let me get back to the book. the title of the book is, "middlesex." guest: absolute -- absolutely. caller: are you aware of that book? guest: yes, i sure am. host: i will let our guest respond. guest: i sure am. it is really a good book. there is artistic license that goes into anything like that, and you are absolutely right. for most people, this isn't a suddenly i woke up when i was 32 years old, you know? using caitlin jenner as an example, she has done a really good job over the last month or so explaining how when she was a kid and this is how it manifested itself been. and when choosing teenager and went to his young adult. she started going out and meeting transgender people to try and understand it when she was in her 30's, but it wasn't

until her 60's when she could execute a transition. it sounded very clinical, to execute a transition, but i have now met kids and doctors of kids who get at 18 months, 36 months five years old would just know. i did. i have thought about this every day of my life and i don't know why, i don't know what causes it, i just know every conscious they of my life since i was three years old i have known this to be absolutely true. and i have known that what society was telling me was my amazing, loving, well-meaning parents were telling me because we didn't know any better in the early 1960's. you know, we know better now. and it is really improving a lot of kids' lives. and books like that do a good

job of -- of educating people about certain aspects. host: what happens when miners want to go through a transition? what laws govern that? guest: again, there are different kinds of transitions. so, i know lots of folks who you know, their children will say, i am a boy or i am a girl and they will let them live that way. you are not going to do a medical transition on a three or four-year-old. i am not an expert on the medical stuff, but that is true. when kids start getting towards puberty, that is when you have to start thinking about what that is. what should be done. but kids very young -- on the bruce jenner interview, they interviewed a friend of mine who is saying she has seen 18 months old just say, no, not girl.

boy. and we know. we know when we are kids. additives -- and it is interesting. society doesn't think to ask how kids are sure about their gender. most little boys and little girls are absolutely sure. and that the arts different than what their parents said. we don't challenge that. we don't say, how does the four-year-old not trans kid know they are not trans? but yeah, kids generally won't -- they will socially transition young, but they won't medically transition. host: from indiana, hello. caller: high. -- hi. my aunt was born a boy and she had a surgery young. i told -- totally support her.

even though i don't talk to her that much, you know, unfortunately. but -- you know -- i see a lot of my own family and friends and stuff who -- who not just with the transgender, but with the lgbt community, just in secret or, you know, in this little family-friendly network, they see a lot of that stuff about those people who live that type of lifestyle. i mean, what does the guest think can be done about that, not just from a public -- you know -- from a public thing, but what can be done for, you know, -- host: we got your point, day. guest: yes, dave, thank you. the most important thing that

happens is what happened to you. you had one in your family. and it has made you more understanding of what transgender is. not that you experienced it yourself, but you know somebody. it is not some abstract thing that some athlete reality show star in hollywood is experiencing. it is something that your family is experiencing. right now, we saw a survey a month or two ago showing that about 20% of americans say that they know a transgender person. that means 80% of people don't either know somebody or they don't know that the know somebody, but what it means is that it is not a real thing for them. so people still have an understandable -- still have understandable, and doubt that my experience is real, that somehow i am trying to make it up or pull some political agenda on somebody.