property damage. university of houston professor gerald horne joins us to talk about the events surrounding a moment in history. ♪ host: good morning. with congress and recess, and the president beginning the second week of his vacation in martha's vineyard, the political world continues to focus on the iowa state fair. five candidates yesterday visiting the fairgrounds. all of them. today, republican ben carson and george pataki will be speaking at the "des moines register" soapbox. among the headlines, "old weaknesses stop hillary clinton's campaign."

and there is this, "why donald trump continues to thrive." hopes for dimming the bipartisannt's support for the iran deal. and, the passing of an naacp leader at the age of 75. this past week, another gallup poll adding a different aspect 75% favorbate -- illegalhip for immigrants. a legal immigrant, (202) 748-8000. if you are in a legal immigrant,

(202) 748-8001. .or all others, (202) 745-8002 thank you very much for being with us. we have posted the gallup poll on our facebook page. you may agree or disagree with those in the survey. meanwhile, the international business times is reporting on it. a majority of americans would citizenship.ay to it comes out as the national debate swirls around 10 million immigrantsegal living in the u.s. 19% would favor of a plan that allows them to stay in the country temporarily. 14% would like to see them all deported to their home country. called forp has

building a wall between the u.s. and mexico. 80% of democrats support a pathway to citizenship. 50% of republicans, according to the gallup poll. as of the rest of the republican field, senator lindsey graham h toorts the pat citizenship. our phone lines are open. if you are a legal immigrant, (202) 748-8000. if you are here illegally, tell us what you think, (202) 748-8001. on c-spanonwide radio. for the rest of you, the number to call is (202) 745-8002. let me again, director attention to the polls on our facebook facebook.com/cspan.wj

first up is francis from virginia. good morning. how long have you been here, francis? years been here for 24 caller: i have been here for 24 years. host: you are here legally ? caller: of course. poll, 65%ou see this favor a pathway to citizenship for you and other immigrants. what is your reaction? caller: i think that sounds good. that sounds promising for me. .'m just tired i have not been to my country for the past 24 years. i haven't seen my mom. i have an american daughter, she is in the military, going through a lot of issues with lawyers, and all that. host: when did you come to the

u.s., and under what circumstances? where are you from? caller: i've from sierra leone. , ande on a visitor's visa i overstate my time. host: you live in alexandria, virginia, what do you do for a living? caller: i am a nurse. host: how does that work if you are here illegally? caller: i have to survive. i can't rob anybody. it is all about lessing from god that i am surviving. francis, joining us from alexandria, virginia, thanks for your call. scott from arizona, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for having c-span. it is interesting that we are using polls to start this conversation this morning -- 65%

think there should be a path. then, you tie it back to -- you do a flip of a coin and say, we are also deciding who can display before the american public in debates. what i would like to stay is i am african-american. america has used african-american heritage to enrich itself. in essence, we are immigrants, legal or illegal, on how we got here. when we look at how we work demonized as africans, we were never taught to understand -- country.as a vicious africa is what in mind it's gold from and man power, we cannot get beyond immigration. we need people who are here to

like theyo contribute have, and our legislators need to figure out a way to make this happen. host: thanks for the call. this headline from washingtonpost.com, a poll finds hispanic disapproval of trump rhetoric on illegal immigrants. next is mark from jacksonville, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. we will continue with your phone calls. as i said earlier, this is from laura vasquez of la raza. here isong support -- what she had to say. [video clip] >> we have seen poll after poll consistently demonstrate that spectrum, political democrat or republican support a

path to citizenship, or legal status. now we are seeing more more polls break that down into two things. one of the things that is interesting is that when it is explained that earned citizenship means meeting requirements, having to go through a background check, demonstrating the you pay taxes, demonstrating that you would learn english, the sport of monks republican voters goes -- amongupport o republican voters goes up. it is in the interest of the country. i think americans supported because they are pragmatic. they understand that they want .mmigrants all in they don't want them in some less than citizenship class. they went everybody on the same boat with the same requirements.

they also understand the history of our country, we are a country of immigrants because we have always encouraged immigrants to fully participate in american life. host: laura vasquez of the national council of la raza. she weighed in on the issue of legal citizenship for those in our country illegally. again, our phone lines are open. we are getting your comments on her facebook page, including stay but let them don't let them vote for 25 years, would that work for you, democrats, or does that defeat your whole purpose? fromis joining us maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. can you tell me how many people took the pole? host: let me pull it up. adults.005 caller: ok.

1005 adults out of 300 million americans. what was the margin of error? host: 3.5%. you will find that on any poll. .aller: polls are propaganda that is why the american people donaldth donsl trump -- trump. razak,n you put on the where he does love her as a get their money? up again. have a nice day. host: tell us what you think. (202) 748-8000 for legal immigrants. (202) 748-8001 for illegal immigrants. .ll others, (202) 745-8002 donald trump was among those at the iowa state fair. he also spoke about the issue in michigan. we will hear from him in a moment. by the way, our coverage continues today from iowa.

then carson and george pataki will be among those speaking at the soapbox. that gets underway at 5:00 eastern, 4:00 central. moines iowae des state fair all this week. you can check our schedule information at c-span.org. here is donald trump. [video clip] , 10 years ago, everybody wanted the ball, they couldn't get it here you know one of the reasons why they couldn't get a? environmental impact statements. did you know that? it is the most incredible thing. we will get the ball built -- wall built. mexico will pay for the wall. mexico is making a fortune off of the united states. excuse me, mexico will pay for the wall, and they will be happy about it. the cost of the wall is peanuts compared to the amount of money they're making. mexico is becoming the new

china. i have a great love for mexico. many, i have thousands of mexican people. over the years, mexicans have worked for me. they're fantastic people, great spirits. the politicians and leaders are thatsmarter and cunning our leaders. they will pay for the wall. they will be happy about it. they will continue to do well, but not as well as they're doing right now. host: donald trump in michigan this past week. he is on "meet the press." alicia is joining us from alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: fine, thank you. caller: i'm calling in regards to immigration and how when we

think of immigration in this country, we always think of mexico or latin american immigrants, and that is not the case. it is very fortunate the donald trump is the main one saying that mexico needs to build the wall. many of our companies are going over there for cheaper labor. sometimes they are paying these people $.15 per day, or one dollar per day, and then they say, they don't need to come over here. they don't want our american jobs to come over here. they're talking about building a wall, but they are the main ones exploiting the people of mexico. conditionsfe working , some of the women, the things they have to go through to even have a job, being raped, being killed on the way to work -- we

contribute to it. to cds politicians -- politicians say we need a pathway to citizenship, they don't really want that. really, american people can afford to live or sustain the families on these jobs. all you can hire is these immigrants because they send their money back to their country. i was just going to say thank you for your call. please wrap up. itler: i just want to say, is just a number of issues to tackle. another issue, based on what other caller said, when you think about hispanic people, and the nature of what is going on with african-americans, i think it is very safe to say that we are all the same people.

we are of african descent. conquer two cultures that belong together. host: thank you for adding your voice to the conversation. by the way, the passing of julian bond. he died in florida. the story from "the wall street journal." a native of national, tennessee, he was considered a symbol an icon of the civil rights movement. he marched with martin luther king. his name was paste in nomination -- to beer humphrey vice president. he was on the front line of protests that led to the landmark civil rights law 50 years ago. later served as board

chairman of the naacp. he also served in the georgia state legislator. he was a professor at american university and the university of virginia. julian bond, passed away over the weekend at the age of 75. michael is next from north carolina. good morning. like the last caller, i'm electrician here. i work every day in the trades. people all over south america, whatever. i just say this. these people are nothing to worry about, just like all the other people in this country, when they came here. they should be accepted as immigrants, moving to a country for a better life, just like everyone else. do pay taxes, regardless of what people want to say. they're not really taking jobs because for all the people who say, they will take my job, i don't see a white man, or anyone else stepping up to the plate

because somehow, someway, hard-working people like ourselves in america, we have been demeaned. we have been like unnecessary. like the guy who yells of the woman driving by, or does this, or does that. trust me. if we're going to do anything about immigration, i think all these people that are going into debt for years with college need to worry about the legal immigration is coming here for people who are taking their jobs because their system of education in their country .anages to educate everybody so, you have an influx of those jobs going away -- computer science. -- : another viewer saying

the caller is wrong, the poll is as valid a measure of public opinion as any other. some other headlines on the sunday morning. "the new jersey star-ledger" focusing on sandy, three years after the hurricane. hy trumpthat, "wide continues to thrive. this morning, jeff flake announcing he will not support the president on the iran nuclear deal. the front page of the "atlanta south ofonstitution," home for jimmy

carter. neighbors say jimmy carter will remain resilient as he faces his cancer. ," front-pagees story -- "bracing for the future." "racial divide" is the front page story in "des moines sunday register your coat next to that, "attention candidates: dreamers in iowa will find you." back to your phone calls. the list joining us from reading, pennsylvania, a legal immigrant. when did you come here? caller: i came here in 1952. host: where you from originally? caller: athens, greece. is a very wealthy man, he sponsored us. we had to go through the process.

we had to go to the american embassy after three years for them to give us the green card. from greece tos new york. five years later, we got an american passport. we had to do the process. i don't have no problem with illegal aliens. i love donald trump, here is a good guy, a real nice guy. maybe people don't realize, but he is. he wants to help this country. the reason is his father helped him, and he wants to help his kids, the country, and his grandchildren. if you give me a few minutes, i want to give you a bill that i wrote down. number one, if you hire anyone illegally, it is 50 years in e.ison, a $1 million fin

your next step, it is cheaper to send back all the people from where they come from. abolish the welfare department and put these people to work. by putting them to work, you invite everybody to america. they don't do pay no taxes at all for 20 years. the economy will grow. you put the flat tax on. then, you build the wall. believe me, once you build the and if they want to come in, they will come in like i did, like everybody else. nobody has any problem by legal immigration. the problem is drug dealing, craziness, rapists, the killings going on in this country. if you see in redding -- and i grew up years ago -- it was like you could walk down the street with your doors open. you can't even walk, or drive

your car, you might get killed. host: thank you for the call. sandy beach has this comment on our twitter page. been abused and pushed as far as we are going to be on immigration." dolores, your next from tennessee. good morning. are you with us? caller: yes. i'm here. can you hear me? host: we sure can. caller: i just wanted to say that i am for a pathway to citizenship for the illegal immigrants that have been in this country for years. anybody else coming in should come in legally, not just walking over the border. the ones that have been here, i believe, should be given a pathway to citizenship. if they are given citizenship,

then they will be paying in federal income taxes, social security, medicare. then, they are no longer a burden for the rest of the people that have to pay for them when they go to the hospital and when they retire. they will be doing just like we do. it will bring in more money to our government system to be able to do more for this country. host: as you well know, part of the argument is this is exactly what congress and reagan did back in 1985-96, trying to end the problem. now, you have another 10-11,000,000 immigrants that are in the u.s. the argument is if we do this now, what will prevent this down in the future? caller: that's right. i do agree with that. i believe that congress has done nothing for so many years, and they could have had this taken .are of years ago

i believe, in my heart, that since president obama became president, because he is a black that ant, they hate it black man won the presidency, and they have given him a hard time on every issue that he has wanted to do for the american people. .hey will not budge until we vote out the far right tea party group, we will continue to have this problem. probably even if we have a republican president. call thank you for the from tennessee. another viewer weighing in on donald trump, saying, he will lose any debate because he has no way of making us pay for a 2000 mile wall. some breaking news this morning, apua.ane missing over po

it was a short flight over the country's mountainous eastern province, the airplane was 54 passengers. the weather was considered to be poor with heavy rain, strong winds, and fog when the plane lost contact with the airport, nine minutes before it was scheduled to land. more details available online at the l.a. times website. matt is next, joining us from north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. that, i would like to say as the grandson of an immigrant, immigrants hold a special place in my heart. there seems to be an underlying fact that no one wants to look at. the majority of the people who have legally immigrated to this country, they came here for a

job. it is just not a very good thing for this country. host: thanks for the call. has theazine photograph, 70 years after the bombs. a look at hiroshima. president harry truman ordered two bombs to go off, the other one in nagasaki. times," apologies from japan's emperor. declared the end of world war ii. for thes were not new emperor, he has often spoken of remorse over the war, and has done so increasingly in recent years.

carl is next from virginia. good morning, welcome to the conversation. caller: hello? host: good morning, carl. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, how are you? caller: i'm all right. there's a legal immigration -- who gives these guys in washington, d c the right to give the country away. that is what immigration is illegalen you take immigrants and turn them into citizens. we are already overcrowded. why do they have to stand up there and induce all of these to stay here, and give them citizenship, when they are not paying their way, as the rest of us must. host: you called on the line for immigrants.

how long have you been in the u.s. and where are you from originally? caller: i'm originally from virginia, and i've been in the united states for 81 years. were born and raised here? caller: yes. host: your parents were immigrants? where they from? caller: indian. host: that makes you native american? caller: yeah. magazine," "ime what it's like to be a cop in america." hailed as joining us from mobile, alabama. caller: good morning. i'm calling on the topic about the illegal immigrants. everybody knows this is about the right to vote. everybody knows that, especially republicans. if it illegal immigrants --

immigrants are given citizenship, and the right to vote, there will not be a republican president for the next 20 years. the illegal immigrants will vote democrat. it is all about the right to vote. it goes back to the days when african-americans were not .llowed to vote once african-americans were given the right to vote, and they were brought here against their will, then the majority of them became democratic voters. the same thing is going to happen with the illegal immigrants. this is what the whole thing is about. it is not about jobs. these jobs that the mexicans are doing -- taking fruit, that kind of thing, common labor -- you can't get the average young black or white child, teenager -- whatever they are -- to pick

fruit, potatoes, whatever. i don't care if you pay them $15-20 dollars per hour, they will not do it. these illegal immigrants do it. true enough, that many of them who have trades. many of them are good carpenters , they do electrical work because they pick of these trades. let me give you a perfect example of what this whole thing is about when i tell you it is about the right to vote. i lived in detroit, michigan for 35 years. asaw that whole city go from business of mixture of business to own-- blacks used businesses back in the 1970's and 1980's. when colemanab --

young got into it with ronald reagan, and they fell out, the white people left detroit in the they just vanished and went to the suburbs. guess what? the arabs moved in. no one said anything about the arabs in detroit. they own the whole city of detroit. they own every gas station, grocery store. host: your point is? that nobodyoint is said anything about them. there are hundreds of thousands of arabs in detroit because they are rich people. they came here until jobs. host: i will stop you on that point. he is now the president of purdue university in indiana, but fred barnes writing about mitch daniels, the campaign that mitch daniels how

would have run for president. a look back at speculation in 2012. now that he is out of politics, the president of purdue university saying he would not 2016 presidential race. on the issue of immigration, de how doeshis point, " rewarding illegal behavior to turn that behavior from continuing?" president obama spent part of his day yesterday back on the golf course, and joining him, former president bill clinton. , peter.good morning as an african-american, i'm all for the pathway to citizenship for the illegal immigrants. i'm not for donald trump. he is a con man. he has the support of the haters of obama. the republican party could not

contain him. they're very angry with the republican party for that. as a matter of fact, i'm not for old, ase man, young or president as long as i live, and i'm 71 years old. i would vote for a woman, which would be hillary because she deserves her chance to be president. thank you, peter. host: thank you for the call. the front page of "the onhington post" focuses hillary clinton, bernie sanders. , "oldthat, a piece alk clinton's new campaign." see patterns they includingging, and

insularity. next is ronald. caller: good morning. ilife or called on illegal immigrants. tell us your story first. caller: yes. ago ashere 40 plus years and became a citizen through the legal process, served in the military for four years, taught in the public schools. i'm disappointed that they are claiming illegals take the job. it is an illusion. classroom, i am very disappointed in the system. i asked an advocate, who will run this country. they are not stepping up to the plate. i totally disagree with most of the general population that thek illegals are taking

jobs. the kids today are not stepping up to the plate. without immigrants, i don't think we can survive in this country. host: why is that? caller: look, take the farming industry for example. do you think we will get groceries in the grocery shops without these illegal immigrants ? they are being exploited. no u.s. citizen is stepping up to the plate. you know, i'm very disappointed when i hear these conversations. i came here, i went through the legal process, but i am disappointed to hear most of the general population getting on the illegal immigrants' case. they're contributing. host: thank you for the call. another viewer saying, "so, so-called illegals wouldn't stay

if they couldn't find a job, who is hiring? "bloomberg politics" also reporting on the iowa state fair -- the iowa state fair has had coalitions, a board, and even johnny cash for two performances. yesterday, donald trump arrived, the billionaire republican and his helicopter, were hard to miss, even on a day when for other hopefuls were on the fairgrounds. fact, many people saying they can't recall a single day in which it had more candidates at the iowa state fair, and more interest. the full story available online. "the new york times" sunday magazine with more on america's incarceration rate.

every year, thousands of innocent people are sent to jail, all because they cannot pull together $500. jose is joining us next, from florida, line for legal immigrants. good morning. are you with us? we will move on to ronald from philadelphia. good morning. one, the path to citizenship, no problem with that. the problem we have is the corporations. look at how they treat of american workers. look at scott walker, what he did to the american workers. if you treat american workers like that, how do you think they will treat illegals? they want illegals so that they can do whatever they want to them. they beat a path to citizenship. if you pay a decent wage, anybody will do the job if the

wages right. number two, anybody talking about a survey, i mean the trump survey is wrong too. host: another question from another viewer saying, what illegalge of a immigrants work in farming?" caller: thank you for c-span. i'm wondering about this notion that conservatives make that president obama and democrats want to make citizens out of illegal immigrants because they will get democratic voters. that suggests that conservatives and republicans aren't capable or willing to win over new voters, or come over the policies that would appeal to them. i'm wondering why they feel they these possible new voters. is it because of all the hatred and vitriol?

host: what do you think? talkr: i think for all the they have about broadening their base, they have no interest whatsoever in broadening their tent. i'm facing the on the calls, comments, and things i hear come out of their mouth sometimes. host: thank you very much for the call. lives move on to larry, joining us from georgia. good morning. good, thank you. i will try to explain this. system. pretty simple first of all, the green card. microchiphat, put a so we know where these people are. number two, the folks who have been here for say 10 years -- whatever number you want -- if

you have been here for 10 years, their clean, they worked, they participate in this country, we start a blue card. a blue card will be like a drivers license. if a lady with a number -- a photo id with the number on it. once you get this blue card, you don't have to worry about being deported back to whatever country you came from. so, there are certain things you can get with a blue card. let me explain first what things you don't get it. the first thing you don't get -- collectt vote, you can welfare, you don't get food stamps, and you don't pay social security. i will start with what you would get. like i said, you would not have to worry about being deported. you could open a bank account. you could buy a car. you can get insurance. you can get a library card.

you can buy house and get alone. all of those things, except for thi the things they said you c't do. the past for citizenship seems to hang everybody up -- republicans against democrats. let's say the united states allows x number of people into the country legally each year. let's reserve a certain percentage of that, let's say 10% of that number, and if you are an immigrant, and you hold the blue card, you can go ahead and apply for citizenship. applicantser of exceeded the number we are setting aside, you would take that number, the lowest number on the blue card. those people would fall in line just like normal people apply for citizenship. no special deal or anything like that.

it seems like when everybody gets hung up on citizenship, this way it would be controlled, a small number, maybe 100,000 per year. whatever the number might be. anyway, that was my simple suggestion. host: thank you for voting in. -- for phoning in. caller: i appreciate you letting me voice my concern. if you're interested in how amazon.com works, and interesting front-page in-depth story from the owner of ," in "the newst york times." toook at what is like work for the retailer. lisa has this on her twitter page. we encourage you to share your

thoughts at @cspanwj. she says, "we don't need illegals to pick produce, as a nation, we can mechanize agriculture, it is what we did in the past." your thoughts, rosalie. caller: my comment is that the united states is a diversified country. we supposed to be diversified. we are now over 25% hispanic. we need more asians, europeans, south africans, whatever. i don't want to become a new mexico. we are over 25%. that exceeds diversification in my opinion. thank you. host: william is next. good morning from newport, arkansas. good morning. morning, little brother, how you doing today? host: fine, thank you.

caller: my thoughts are that we invite mexico and make it state, south of texas. go down there, secure the border, builds the more walmarts, take over the drug trade. host: honestly, how likely is that? well, that's what we have got now. andborder is flexible, people are coming through. i don't see anything different from when we took texas and arizona, do you? host: thank you for weighing in. let's go to greg. good morning, your thoughts? caller: good morning. thank you for c-span and for taking my call. i don't know how you keep your patience when some people call in. host: we try. it doesn't always work. , i'm not for this

citizenship in any way, shape, or form. let me do a segue here. i think people who serve in the american armed forces is about 1% of the population. for some reason, i follow into that 1%. i did eight years of active duty in the navy. stand allowing somebody from across the border illegally, and then we reward them with citizenship. it just doesn't make sense. host: what you do with the people who are here? that is part of the conundrum. aller: i think there is policy of compassionate deportation. somebody who has a family over here, they have been here for 10 , and havingars

committed any crimes, they have etc., their pain taxes, then let's be reasonable about this. stop the illegal immigration. this one gentleman called it and alienslegal are not taken american jobs. that is false. i can attest to that. i did about 30 years in the field, in the trades. they started out displacing black people when they came. thatst happened to be black people, in my experience, were very strong in the trades -- bricklaying and concrete. forgive me, but my experience,

when i first came to north that theyn 1984 was were in landscaping. they were first -- blacks were first displays for landscaping, bricklaying and concrete. next thing you know, they are displaced as carpenters. trade was air-conditioning ventilation. next thing you know, these guys are showing up with the tools of thetrade, and undercutting prevailing wage. host: thanks for adding your voice. james has the final word on her twitter page, saying, "how about covering the polls showing that

immigration is a very low priority on the minds of most americans?" clinton, who worked the crowd yesterday, she did not speak at the soapbox, nor did donald trump. today, ben carson and george the attack he will be on hand. in iowa.e all weekend we also covering new hampshire. on friday, we will travel to south carolina, a campaign rally with senator bernie sanders. following the rally, he will take your questions and comments. we will take a short break. when we come back, we will turn our attention to hillary clinton clinton's e-mails. joining us is christopher farrell of judicial watch. later, daniel kalik will join us of j street, the jewish american advocacy group, about why j

the iran nuclear deal. irsst, "newsmakers," which a after "washington journal," pawlenty on why he thinks donald trump has the potential to win the iowa caucus. [video clip] there is a long way to go between now and the iowa caucuses early next year, early 2016. iowans are notorious for deciding late. it is a more conservative state, in terms of the caucus, then other states. not a lot of people show up. it is a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup. that subgroup tends to be pretty conservative.

is innow, donald trump the lead at about 20%. that means there is 80% of the vote that is out there that is not for trump. if someone can succeed and consolidating that 80%, that is a winning formula. that means the field will have to shrink substantially. that may not happen. 20% or 25% could be the winner. do you start to talk about donald trump as a winner in some of these early states? >> given the surprising resilience of his appeal, the wrongness of his speak -- he seems to be of the say anything, and it doesn't affect his polling numbers -- he may have more staying power than people first realized. if you will get the nomination, but he will be a mostnd longer than

people believe. i come from a state where jesse ventura was elected governor, and the kardashians seem to be so popular for mysterious reasons. you never know. especially in politics. who knows awlenty thing or two about running for president, he did so in 2012, now heading the financial services roundtable here in d.c. on today'st "newsmakers" program. you can watch that after "the washington journal" here on c-span and listen to it on c-span radio. we want to welcome back christopher farrell. he is investigative and research director for judicial watch, which is what? guest: our mission is to grow up .- to promote transparency we do that by using the freedom of information act at the federal level and state level.

host: you have been using that to go after hillary clinton's records. some new developments now that the fbi has the server and the e-mails. why is it such an important ?ssue jek guest: we have 3400 freedom of pendingion act requests on the operations of government. what happens, what the government is or isn't doing. of that universe, we have about 18 lawsuits that we filed because we need to go to court to compel the government to give us records. we are trying to help educate the public on the operations of the government. that is what our goal is. we get these records, and then make them public. we hope the public reviews them and has an idea of what is or is not happening. it is not based on soundbites,

it is based on actual documents. andget past spin language, get to actually read the government's records. we think that is important. host: do you think she has something to hide? guest: that is a great question. as a question that is begged by her shifting stands over time and notion that first she claimed there was no classified information, now she very carefully says there was no marked classified information. she denies, or said she would erver, ande her s has been one gets the impression that the story is unraveling. host: what is the difference between classified and top-secret? guest: there is a level of information. top-secret being the highest level of secret.

it would cause what they call extensive or grave damage to national security. within those levels, there things called compartments, based on the type of intelligence being discussed. you may have seen reference to top-secret -- the header on the classified record that the intelligence community made reference to. about not just top-secret information, but categories, types. there are different methods and sources of obtaining classified information. that is the most sensitive of all. jewels,e crown essentially. host: she has repeatedly said -- hillary clinton -- that she carried on the same practices as their predecessors, including: how. including colin powell.

guest: that is misleading. no one has established there outside outlaw server. none. there may have been cases where general powell sent an e-mail has his account, but no one established a separate outside server. no one has run their own independent network outside of the government. it has never been done. host: why do you think she did that? guest: i think it harkens back to her husband's presidential run when there were fights over records. historically, if you look back to 1999, there was a fight over white house e-mails. the then white house deputy counsel, who is now mrs. clinton's chief of staff, was in the white house. there was a fight over white house e-mails. again, the same sort of confusion about what was and

wasn't in the records. and litigation resulted in order where the judge called her professional conduct in that case inadequate. the same cast of characters, 16 years later, are fighting over e-mails in a case where miss conducter professional has been cited by a judge as in inadequate, and 16 years later, fighting over e-mails with the same cast of characters. it is not a good track record. rural today mills is what? guest: she was the chief of clinton's state department. she is now operating her own law practice. host: hillary clinton did speak yesterday to reporters and

worked the crowd. she was asked repeatedly about turning over her e-mails. here's more from the former secretary of state. [video clip] >> i have said in the past that -- obviously, he is leader, it doesn't look comedian. the fats are the same as they have been since the very beginning. importantly, i never sent classified e-mail on my material, and never received any. thisng to let whatever inquiry is move forward, and we will await the outcome of it. the state department confirmed what i just said to you. if you lookhink --

at the republicans in congress who are running for president, there is it an unfortunate attempts to try to make partisan a tragedy in benghazi, which i fundamentally disagree with. i do not think it is right, and i will not participate. we will see how this all plays out. it is not anything that people talk to me about, as i travel around the country. it is never raised in my town meetings in my other with people. i think what people are interested in is what senator harkin said, who will get the economy moving, who will create jobs, who will get the cost of college down, and refinance people's debt, and open up the workforce to women, people with disabilities, and so much more. that is why talk about on the campaign trail. yesterdayary clinton

at the iowa state fair. your reaction? thing that is the key is her emphasis that she did not receive any e-mails marked classified your she is being very careful with her language. general'sd inspector in the intelligence committee say there is top-secret information going to her outlaw server unlawfully. the system of communicating in the government, there are three distinct channels. p secreton that tops information was sent over the internet is reckless. employee government doing the same thing would be fraud marched out of the building. you would see video of fbi agents carrying cargo boxes out of their house. we saw that with general

there was a security violation there far less classified information. veryis very damaging, damaging personally and for a campaign. i think she is trying to be very careful with her language. host: some republicans, including donald trump, saying this is now a criminal matter. if she broke the law could you phase criminal charges? it is a criminal matter. host: how so? guest: because what they are investigating our national security crimes. the unlawful or inappropriate handling, any use of classified information is a national security crime. i know that firsthand from my earlier professional career. i was a special agent of army counterintelligence.

i'm telling you that i have investigated people who inappropriately handled classified information. i am not guessing. i have done it for a living. these are national security crimes. they are investigated that way. there has to be an identification of the vulnerabilities. there is a lot of work to do. the fbi appears to be doing that work now. it is very grave. this is not an administrative error. this is very serious. host: where do you think this is all going to leave? what are some possibilities? guest: i am hoping the fbi would conduct a rigorous examination of the server, of the thumb drives that were turned over. there are unanswered questions concerning other servers that may exist, perhaps servers that , that the state department was eventually provided. there are technical forensic questions that are quite

detailed and the specifics of which, greatly i am not qualified to discuss. you would need an i.t. professional to really drill down on that. be athere is going to tracing back of who set -- send what e-mail when, and then even things like bcc, blind carbon copies. i think they may have turned over paper copies of her e-mails, what are sometimes referred to as dumb copies. it does not contain the metadata , the routing information that you would receive in a digital version of the e-mails. d, whould see who was bcc was forwarded the e-mail. there are a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of work to do. host: we will get your calls in just a moment, but one follow-up. why did the state department and the white house let this happen? others had to know. of my that is one

greatest questions. you have the senior leadership within a state department who had to have known. you had people in the white house, even private citizens who are e-mailing her. outside, private persons who are e-mailing her. those are persons who knew she was running this outlaw server. why didn't anyone say anything? and if they did, were there objections taken seriously? were they acted on? where they investigated? at a certain point, you are or you areigent complicit. you cannot have it both ways. if you know this is going on, you either stand up and say while -- stop, we can't operate this way. it's unlawful. or you are along for the ride. there are a lot of tough questions that have to be asked, and hopefully we get answers to.

this is a very grave matter. it is not something that she should be jumping -- joking about. she was joking yesterday about how she had a snapshot and joking that those disappear all by themselves. this is nothing anyone should be laughing or joking about. host: our guest is christopher farrell, he is a research investigator for judicial watch. atch.org.te isjudicialw our phone lines are open. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. matthew joining us from philadelphia, democrat line. good morning. as a democrat, your take on all this, and the impact of potentially house for hillary clinton. caller: good morning. i am a big-time hillary reporter -- supporter. i am also a former executive branch employee. i'm not going to save which --

i'm not going to say which branch. host: during which administration? caller: during this administration, when hillary clinton was secretary of state i was an executive branch employee like she was. i was just a regular working guy. astounded atlly what she did. she is arrogant, but i just never figured she would be this stupid. seriously. we were getting memos the a e-mail just about every month -- e-mail e-mail -- via just about every month telling us not to do what she was doing. nownd it hard to believe everybody says they did not know what she was doing. to then she went department of state cap operable to have the private server? she was the department of state. who was going to tell her no?

you serve ing did the administration, or in the executive branch? caller: i was there for 30 years. i was a career civil servant. was under theer obama administration when she was secretary of state. host: will you still support her in 2016? caller: i still support her as a democrat. i don't think she will survive this legally, because i think -- i don't think loretta lynch will it is prettyt collocated. host: thank you. we will get a response. technicalhink the aspects of this may be more compensated than not, but i think the truth does not require a lot of expiration. the truth is, people are drawn to it. they can recognize what it is. it is pretty acceptable. when people get into long , that isd wordsmithing

where they get into trouble. in this case i think it is pretty clear what she did was set up an outlaw server that had nothing to do with any government system. it is a grave security issue. it is a transparency issue. there is a record. she is hosting government business on a private server. it is an archival issue. from her term as secretary of state. now she can pick and choose what that record is. host: two things. she says she has released all the official information. she is not releasing her personal e-mails or -- where she made reference to chelsea's wedding or yoga. and jennifer palmeiro who was the former white house committee record, now hillary clinton's mitigation director, sending out a long e-mail saying the fbi is not living in doing criminal investigation, that this is --

is not looking into a criminal investigation, that this is just a routine investigation. is a lot of explaining that is going on, it is sort of tortured language. serverhis is an e-mail set up by mrs. clinton at her direction to conduct her e-mail traffic for her official -- actually, kurt used in a confession -- official capacity. she ran it. she used it. she conducted business off of it. the e-mail server did not do this by itself. it is an inanimate object. somebody made decisions. mrs. clinton jimena kidded overtly to her circle of communicated overtly to her community of associates. you can't blame someone else. i understand she's upset or if she is frustrated, but it is her

own doing. she has created this. klesko to helen joining us from west virginia, republican line. caller: i have a couple questions, but first i would like to say one thing about mrs. clinton. how far down her poll she goes, i don't think she can afford to quit. simply because of all the donations use taken from foreign countries. when they give you money, they expect something in return. i don'tthink -- believe a thing she said. i would like to ask a question regarding this bill in this river in colorado. i know they are testing all the water for chemicals and everything. i just wonder if there is any somee that there might be stuff and some of that water. neey mind cold for gold -- mi coal for gold and it settles

into the soil. i just wonder if anyone is checking to see if there happens to be any gold dust or anything in that liquid. host: helen, we appreciate the call, but that is off-topic for our guest. guest: i don't have anything to add. host: thank you for the call. let's move on to tom, joining us from centerville, massachusetts. independent line. if you do about the gold dust you can weigh in. .aller: good morning everybody everyone knows gold is a very heavy elements. it would be at the bottom of the minds. mines.the bottom of the host: how do you know that? caller: iwatch gold reality tv. ago americansrs dropped the atomic bomb which was not about by the manhattan project in the united states of america.

and savedorld war ii many millions of lives, both japanese and american. it is in that. of time, when that was being ofe, -- is in that period time someone has leaked important information and it had been aout, it would have very big error on the part of those who spoke out about what they were doing. example ofrgs are in people who passed on information to foreign elements of opposing government and created what we know as the nuclear cold war era. for somebody to have a private server, though i am not totally technologically astute, it seems to me you are holding vast amounts of information by the state department whether it be

either social or top top-secret information about potential moments in time where you are going to be giving money, whatever, to other governments via the united states. it creates a very big problem for other people to know what the chessboard moves are by the state department. host: tom, thanks for the call. your response? guest: i agree with the caller. in march of 2013 a romanian access to cynthia blumenthal's e-mail. anthia blumenthal is decade-long associate of mrs. clinton. a professional advisor to her. a personal friend. they hacked into her e-mail and actually published screenshots which reveals that mrs. clinton had this outside e-mail server.

just want the viewers to pause for a moment and think about, if a hacker can get into sidney blumenthal's e-mail and from their move into mrs. clinton's e-mail, we should think about what the national intelligence services of russia and communist china would do. with a level of sophistication and technology than i would guess are light years beyond what an individual hacker would have. mrs. clinton says that all of her official state department business is conducted over this outlaw server. the outside persons would not only be up to find it but hackett, penetrate it. this is a very grave security issue. if one hacker in romania can do it, what are the chinese and russian intelligence services doing? .ost: two quick follow-ups

first of all, her argument was she wanted a standalone device. host: that made -- guest: that may be what she is representing now, but i can tell you that she was also using an ipad and wanted to use an ipod -- ipad. they were asked to certify her use of an ipad and a repeatedly told her no, that the device was not secure. for my understanding she went ahead and used it anyway. there are photos of her using some kind of device, a blackberry perhaps, there were also reports of her using an ipad. judge sullivan ordered the state department to provide a listing of all the devices and hardware that were involved in her e-mails, and they simply refused. they did not follow the judge's of listing her devices and hardware. i find that astounding, that a

federal judge issuing an order, , and they missed the deadline. they asked for an extension. when the response came in at 5:00 p.m., they completely ignored the judge's order. there was no list of devices or hardware. host: and that this tweet from stella, do you 12 -- do you trust the fbi to do the right thing for america or is corruption to the? how long will we wait? guest: those are great questions. rightly i think because we are dealing with historical records -- these are from the past, they are identifiable on servers. with a $300 tool that can be used to access these servers and sort of scan them for what is frankly, aand for much more significant forensic exam, i would imagine it would be weeks. that is just a guess. host: and michael makes this point, hillary clinton even

touted that she is a multi-device user to the msn mainstream -- media. guest: i can tell you that i appreciate there is a need for this. you have to devices. it your personal device and your business device. if you are working in a sensitive department, ewald athin ewald, -- ewald -- vault,-- vault within a people have to lock up their phones outside the workspace. you are not even allowed to bring the transmission -- transmitters into the area. the attorney general jokingly said she uses for different devices. so she certainly has an appreciation for the security requirements associated with electronic devices and the

secret and top-secret information. host: from new hampshire, roger is next. democrats line. caller: good morning. i am a hillary supporter and i wanted to say this last week or , the white house communications was hacked. i think the pentagon has been hacked. almost every state or government thing has been hacked. i don't think that that is pertinent to her e-mail. secondly, when ronald reagan was were for there terrorist activities that happened to americans with an 18 month. in beirut and lebanon. thirdly, the fact that the other people are not happy that it took two weeks to get this corrected version is irrelevant.

it's too late after the fact. the fact that they said one thing or whatever, that people weren't happy about, did not affect the outcome. host: how do you respond? guest: i don't have a response. he is entitled to his opinion or whenever he would like to say, but our interest is in getting the records of the government, as the public is due. we have been doing us a judicial watch for more than 20 years. the open records law, the freedom of information act, are important tools for accountability. it lets people see the governments work. there are important, primary source governments for political scientist, or lists, historians. we just want the records produced. that is what we do. and a viewer taking aim at me and this program, shame on you for not pointing out: powell and a jeb bush use of private

servers when they were in the government. the viewer who was not with us earlier in the program. do you want to elaborate? what jebdon't know bush did or did not do as the governor of florida. he never set up a private e-mail server. he sent an e-mail from a personal account, a gmail account or something like that. i don't know specifically which one. this is remarkable he different than setting up your own separate outside e-mail server in order to circumvent the established both unclassified and classified government networks that every other cabinet secretary has used as long as there has been e-mail. no one else has done what she has done. host: have you in the past requested e-mails from previous secretaries of state? guest: absolutely. it is something we do all the time.

e-mails are very important to us, because unlike policy documents that are heavily crafted and wordsmith, e-mails are normally quite chatty. people say things in e-mails, off-the-cuff, they are much more frank about their assessments of what they will or won't do. what is going on. e-mails are very valuable to understand what is going on. garrett is next, orlando, florida, republican line. good morning gentlemen. c-span is a national treasure. especially washington journal. i would just like to comment and thishat this makes me -- 18 minute gap or whatever it was, however long it was on the nixon tapes, look like a sneeze. is is thatomment secretary clinton asserts that she never transmitted secret information over her e-mail. it outst absolutely --

slowly defies credulity. i would like you to comment on that. host: thank you. comes to thetainly volume of information we are addressing. the callers intuition is correct. 118 minute gap versus thousands of e-mails. no one has any idea how many e-mails were involved. i think the important thing -- and this kind of belies the notion that this is somehow we file for a request and we litigate against all administrations. we have sued the obama administration for records and documents. we sued the bush administration more than 200 times for records and documents. this is an issue of exercising the freedom of information act and getting records and making them available to the public. what i think it is important here is that we have three different judges working on various cases that we have brought. judge sullivan, who actually was appointed by mrs. clinton's husband. judge walden, and judge the

terrace. three different judges working on three different cases. this is not a partisan issue. these are federal judges who have brought various cases about the production of records, and they want answers. you have provided warnings to the government that they need to preserve the record and produce them. a question of political agenda or democrats or republicans. this is about the exercise of the freedom of information law. branch has aal role in this. the fbi is doing their investigation. the judges are running the cases that we brought to them. hopefully the truth gets out. host: mario is next from new jersey. democrats line. caller: good morning. a few points. first of all, it's judicial watch is so concerned about transparency, you would be a little bit concerned about overclassification. second of all, the criminal

issue you are talking about would be the same as using a state.gov account which is on secured. -- unsecured. and: powell explicitly used personal e-mail. there is no material difference between that and using a server. the truth is, if you are interested in requests and not'sal purposes, we have e-mails. why are you making a stink about that jacket we have zero. -- why aren't you making a stink about that? we have zero. i don't have a problem with you going after hillary clinton, but to say it is not political and whatve no concern about howled it is beyond reproach. the caller makes statements that are false. establishll did not an outside e-mail server.

that is untrue. do ask for all the records concerning various secretaries of state, with a hat or have not done. he made reference to something about complaining about over complication. that is not our call. that is not what we do. instancesame to some where the government has been these are exemptions used by the government when it tried to keep something classified, for example we had asked for the fbi files concerning ted kennedy once he had passed away. there is a lot of interesting information concerning senator kennedy and his various activi y ies. we challenge that claim. it had nothing to do with being classified. it had awkward or embarrassing information regarding the

senator that the department of justice claims was classified that wasn't. we brought those sort of things to court and we won. we win frequently when it comes to that sort of thing. i am not clear -- we do fight classification issues, and i am trying to address that issue that the caller started with. with respect to: powell and his term as secretary of state, we challenge the secretary of state and ask for those records all the time. it is not a partisan issue. we have sued the bush administration over the cheney task force which was an open meeting issue. we went all the way to the supreme court over that fighting for government transparency . host: we have this tweet. interested in the dick cheney e-mail which judicial watch has requested. guest: it was a task force which was set up in large part by --

under the same law, the federal committee act, as hillary clinton's task force -- health care task force act in 1993 and 1994. people complained about hillary her task force. what is good for the goose is good for the gander. cheney's task force was set up under the same law and operated the same thing. they were meeting with outside groups getting input on energy policy matters. records.o obtain those there was a lot of stonewalling. we obtained many records but it was incomplete and so we went to the appellate court in d.c. and we went on to the supreme court. the kate -- the case ended up being remanded back down for further input from the appellate court. i think it is just a great

example of how we fight for records regardless of the administration, no matter where it goes. we try to do our part. is carriedprogram live on c-span radio and we welcome our listeners listening coast-to-coast. for chris farrell of judicial watch. our line for independents. good morning. caller: hi. good morning. as far as i'm concerned this whole thing on hillary is a made-up thing. you know why? ok. thatwhen everybody knew hillary was going to run and hillary was going to be the front of the democrats. ok. when she was going through that thing in congress they posted a what doeser saying this matter in congress, and it was a video of a fox news station. i knew right then and there that

they were going to hang hillary no matter what. they were going to dig back in her past. date, date,ing to date, and they were going to her, talk, talk and make sound like she was dirty. i don't care what you people do. you did the same thing to obama. you made him dirty. but what you don't understand is all these other countries on the outside are looking at this country and they are saying how stupid our congress is. thank you. i'm sorry. host: thank you grace. guest: she is entitled to her opinion. host: tom is next. the morning, richmond, virginia. republican line. caller: yes sir. i was a fisherman >> there -- there was a fisherman on the gulf coast who was charged with fishing something illegal from the sea. he returned it to the sea and

was charged with destroying evidence. when hillary clinton finally turned her information over it was wiped clean. why had she not been charged with destroying evidence? guest: i think that is what the fbi is now investigating, the status of that server. what was on it. what is on it now. forensically looking at it to see what may have been on it before. those are all open questions. host: what are your top two or three questions, you personally? of course, there are the records we have asked for. many requests concerning everything related to any number of different topics during her term as secretary of state. there is not matter of our requests, and that the issue concerning exactly what went on with the server. host: typically how long does it take to receive the information after you sent that the request?

we filed these requests. by statute the government is required to answer with -- within 20 days. they frequently do not. they missed the deadline. you have to exhaust all of your administrative remedies and then you can go to court and say we have tried the best weekend, the agency is not responsive responsible or there is some barrier. then you get a court in a lawsuit, you are asking a federal district court to go to the agency and say why are you not producing these records? normally that results in the agency coming forward and offering to produce records on a calendar or schedule that is overseen by the judge. that is sort of a pattern of what we see. 3400tioned earlier we have pending requests in the database that we actively manage. some are just filed in the past few weeks. host: of all of these -- of all of these our

experience has been, unfortunately, that we very often have to file a lawsuit in order to get the government's attention and compel them to answer and produce records. it is unfortunate, but it is just a fact. minutes withmore our guest. harry is next joining us from washington state. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a few comments. all, this fellow's words are very prejudicial. he uses the word outlaw. let me see, i am just looking at my notes here. oh, you are innocent until proven guilty. no one can prove she has done anything wrong. these are mostly rumors. the private server, everyone knew where those e-mails were coming from. the state department knew. i am just trying to read it back, i can't.

she is innocent until proven guilty. there has been no guilt proven against her. host: thank you for your call. we will get a response. guest: so i call it an outlaw server because it has been established outside the law. it is not according itself -- the creation of that server, running her e-mail through the outside system, conducting her business on a server outside the official communication systems is outside the law. these are state department regulations and policies. it is the law of the land. if you are doing some like that it is unlawful. i used the word brave because -- that is thee language and wording in united states law with respect to classification of materials. means it's top-secret information is released or improperly handled, or in some way jeopardized, the language would call that extremely grave

damage to national security. the word grave is in the law regulated information and material. i agree with the caller, you are innocent until proven guilty. but mrs. clinton has admitted and gone into detail her setting up this server and running it off line outside of the state department. her e-mails were screened, some were deleted. these are all things she has admitted to, there are court documents that document all of this. , or as not a question fact in question. or an open issue. these are established fact. the issue now is, what are the security repercussions? i have the professional experience having investigated these things. in my opinion, it is a reckless act. it is a dangerous situation, and

it is a vulnerability. let me go back to one earlier point. the timeline for all of this. what do you think this will reach some kind of combination? guest: -- host: some kind of culmination? guest: that's difficult to say. this is an fbi investigation. they are going to try to construct what has been destroyed. there are interviews to conduct. if not months,k i don't see anything happening quickly. host: christopher farrell who it is the investigative leader for judicial watch. thanks for being with us. we are going to take a short break and when we come back we will turn our attention to the iran nuclear deal and get the perspective of daniel kalik. he is with j street which is a

jewish-american advocacy group in favor of the iran deal. later, gerald will be looking back at the 50th anniversary of the watts riots in los angeles. of $40y damage in excess million. but first, our cities tour continues. will on c-span2 booktv, we give you five different stops during our 2015 tour, including a look at musician and social activist woody guthrie. here is a preview. i got started in oklahoma, where i was born. population down there is one ,hird indian, one third negro one third white people. i hit the road when i was about 13 years old doing odd jobs all over the country. i met all kinds of people and i

picked up a lot of songs. ♪ > >> woody guthrie's most famous for his writing of this land is your land. he was born in 1912 in oklahoma. we are very proud if you have his work back in oklahoma, where we think it belongs. he was an advocate for people who are disenfranchised, for those people who are migrant workers from oklahoma, kansas, and texas during the dust bowl you're a. -- dustbowl era.

people in california literally starving. he's all this vast difference between the people who were the house and the have-nots. you can watch all of our cities to online anytime at atpan.org/citytour and today 2:00 eastern on c-span two booktv. we will take a look at five different stops. tune in.ou turn -- and of course if you see our vehicle in your community, stop why and say hello. kalik is vice president of internal affairs for j street. an organization that is what? guest: it is a pro-israel, pro-peace organization. morevocate for a diplomatic approach to the middle east. a two state to -- a two state solution. host: and certainly, not in line

with what we have been hearing from other organizations or from israeli prime minister regimen netanyahu. guest: i think there are some misconceptions about where the american jewish community is, and where israelis are about the deal that was struck between world powers and iran recently. we have seen 60% support in american jews for this deal. and the consensus in the israeli national security establishment are saying that it is in israel's interest. different from some of the politicians in israel, yes, but broad support among the american jewish community. host: we want to point out on the outset that we have also invited representatives of citizens for a nuclear free iran . they are welcome to come on this program anytime to offer their perspectives. so far they have not responded to many inquiries to have them

join in this conversation. .ut we welcome daniel kalik we are dividing our phone lines a little bit different way. if you support the iranian .uclear deal, (202) 748-8000 if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . news over the weekend that republican senator jeff blake is not supporting the deal. he had been one possible republican that would have made it a bipartisan agreement on capitol hill. why his no vote? guest: this debate is becoming more and more partisan as it goes forward. in the end most of public as will be against it and most democrats will be for it. it will be of limited. -- it will be implemented. think many saw that the -- eight dramatic approach with iran was the only way to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. unfortunately he has come out

against it now. in the end it will be of limited. the: this morning one of opinion pages in the washington not -- s the 2000 price says white house scare tactics on iran, that is the piece by senator lieberman. vote for that -- is a vote for war. guest: first of all, i think this is a strong deal because it prevents iran from getting a nuclear weapon and it does it well putting inspectors on the ground. as for joe lieberman or any of whatpponents of the deal, i have not heard as a viable alternative. i think without this deal, iran has no inspectors. they can seek a bomb with no restrictions on that. they are much -- we are much

more likely to have a military conflict. did thet only predictions of military disaster a little to deter congress for moving ahead, the sanctions -- the doomsday forecasts were proven wrong. it just as current productions will be. and when the scare tactics failed and ibo county in congress started to turn heavily against its position, the white house changed course. just as it can and should now. senate member of the when congress developed a series of bills but dramatically increase pressure on tehran for it illicit nuclear activities, including adopting a measure in late 2011 that effectively banned iran from selling oil. in every case, senior obama administration officials worked to block congressional efforts. guest: i would look at obama's approach to this over his presidency as a huge success. u.s.we cannot do with the

alone is put sections that will apply real pressure to iran. ,hat you need is russia, china the international community to be with you. that is what the president did. he put together an unprecedented international agreement. that leverage has worked. it brought them to the table. we had two years of tough negotiations and now we have a deal that accomplishes the exact goal put out by joe lieberman and others. host: in a statement from senator chuck schumer that was released this weekend from a press conference at the place in rochester, new york, he said the following. i will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because i believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. it is because i believe iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of wellnating sanctions

ultimately retaining its nuclear and nonnuclear power. in her to keep sanctions in place, strengthen them, and force secondary actions -- sanctions. guest: i don't know where chuck schumer thinks the rest of the world is on this, but without the international regime along with us putting these incentives in place, our sanctions alone do not provide the same level of pressure on iran that got them to the negotiating table and the first place and brought about a deal which a college is the first goal we were looking at. getting a nuclear weapon, inspectors on the ground. i think it is a little bit of a fantasyland that we can go back after negotiating with the entire u.n. security -- after negotiating something that the un security council voted for unanimously. i just don't see that happening. host: the executive editor of

the hill newspaper is keeping track of the whip count of the debate and vote expected to take place when congress returns in mid-september. the story is available online at thehill.com. our guest is daniel kalik of jason treat -- j street. caller is aest -- democrat who supports the iran deal. vet and i have sons. i don't think they are looking at it in a realistic sense. war is not something that we need. also i am glad to hear that somebody is supporting a two state deal in israel, because i think that would be a helping factor to normalize things over there. they are building the settlements but nobody is going in them. diplomacy is the best thing.

it, the rest of the world is behind this deal. we needed to go along with it. trying to put sanctions on somebody by yourself is not going to work. host: thank you. we'll get a response. guest: thank you. i think what is really exciting outside of this deal, which a cop which is the israeli goal that i mentioned earlier, is the use of diplomacy as a tool of foreign policy in the middle east and around the world. i think we have seen in some , that military force has its limits in preventing harm around the world. diplomacy can belong, involves compromise. it is not always pretty. but it is a really effective tool. i appreciate that point. from the daily caller -- host: from the daily caller, the j street is a front. guest: no.

a membership organization. i would say we are a voice representing the true stance of the majority of american jews that have strong majority support for this deal. we are expressing that voice here in congress and to our elected leaders so they know that we want to take a diplomatic approach. host: and with regards to senator chuck schumer, this is aipecteve, a tweet saying money owing schumer has made a return on its investment. guest: senator schumer is the only democrat that has now come out against the deal. many so far have come out for it. i think that in the end this deal will be implemented. host: this caller is linda joining us from columbia, maryland. good morning. why do you oppose it? caller: this so-called deal will

not allow any iaea inspection or u.s. inspection teams. what sort of inspection would be allowed then under the deal? is thethis deal actually the diligent in sections is -- regime -- diligent inspection regime ever negotiated. we would be able to inspect anywhere in the country we feel there may be suspicious activity. also the inspections last in perpetuity under the nonproliferation treaty. there in fact are inspections, and i think those of us who look at this deal and read it closely were really excited to see that. host: next caller is charles joining us from fort collins, colorado. good morning. caller: good morning. pretext to this, i read the whole agreement. i read all of the iran sanctions.

one thing i just want to make a is he is viewed as a moderate. not evenme council did want him in there that much. over 80% of the people and iran are under 30 years old. they celebrate valentine's day. they want freedom. they want ipods. they want democracy. they are fighting against the people that we really are fighting against over there. itthis things fall through, is a no vote for bay romney. towards emotion as they did in 2009 towards a more democratic state and a state that works with the world. i don't see why anybody, if you read this and turn off the tv,

and look at the hearings, can ever say in their right mind that this is not a great deal. for the world and for the united states, and especially for israel of all places. that is my comments. host: charles are you still with us? he said he read the full agreement, the 114 page executive summary. a -- many of the details still have not been released. guest: i think the whole deal is available online. anyone can read them. they are going to be some segments of any deal that are classified in nature, but everyone in congress has seen those. they are digging into this and they are seeing what about this deal is wrong and where it's weaknesses are. i think they are evaluating whether this deal makes the united states safer and they are evaluating what alternatives may exist to the deal. that is were the conversation often stops. i have not heard anyone able to

articulate where we would go if we don't accept this deal. do you think senator charles schumer should still be the democratic leader in the senate? guest: well i don't think it is my position or j street's position to deny who should be leading the democratic senators. we do have this disagreement on one issue with him. if this deal makes israel safer and the united states safer -- but i will let the democrats choose their leader. i will say that the 20 democrats who have come out for the deal, and senator shuman is alone in his opposition. host: and another tweet this is the best way to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons is to destroy their nuclear weapons facilities. guest: look at least this person is being honest. they are calling for a military strike. most military experts say that this could set act their military program by two to three years. i prefer a dramatic approach that has the entire world on

board that does not have outcomes like we saw in iraq. honesty ine your putting out an alternative, i just think it is far inferior to what we have in front of us. street is a jewish american organization. our guest is daniel caliph. he is the vice president for internal affairs. anthony is joining us from new york, he opposes this deal. why? caller: i oppose any form of nuclear power. i think it is a destructive force. i think it is going to be the end of all humankind. we already have more waste then we will be capable of storing in the suppose it repository which was stated by law to be filled with the waste find -- with the waste. none of this has come to

fruition, it in my opinion they are breaking the laws that terminated all these reactors. now they are redoing all the permits and reloading them theting twice if not triple waste, storing the waste on-site. the technology really is going to be the end all of any kind of life in this solar system that we had here. but back to the situation. it is the height of hypocrisy for the united states to tell another nation what they can and cannot do when we ourselves -- the environmental community -- had tried to stop the of limitation of all of this .uclear waste and nuclear power it is untenable. it is unsustainable in this environment that we live in. it is just not going to build well. look at what is going on in japan, with they are having to deal with. to start a war and start bombing people because they want to do exactly what you do, until you are ready to put down your arms and phase out your nuclear

programs how can you expect somebody else to do the same? you mentioned before that iran is this evil empire. the united states is the only one to ever use nuclear bombs on people in such a horrific way. and still to this day i think donald rumsfeld had said that he was thinking of using nuclear weapons when he invaded iraq. who is the evil empire here? since when is the united states the police of the world's? we should not have dumped israel palestine.le of we have created our own problem. it is just getting worse and worse. all theseneed diplomats, why do we did all this bureaucracy, when in fact you are just going to start killing people anyway? host: many issues on the table. we will give our guest a chance to respond. guest: there was a lot in there to unpack. on where thexpert energy future of the united states or the world should go.

but i do know is that iran -- the regime in iran has been hostile to israel and hostile to the united states. it supports terrorism. it has proxies. they are destabilizing other middle eastern countries. we don't want a country or a regime like that to have a nuclear weapons. we don't want an arms race in the middle east could establish -- destabilize the entire region and the world. +1 has come the p5 together. this point on our twitter page, we need a nuclear free middle east including israel. guest: look i think we are all moving towards having less nuclear weapons in the world. host: omar joining us from terre haute, indiana. hi steve.

i told your screener that i support the agreement although i have mixed feelings about it. i sometimes think that the united states wants to cut off its nose to spite his face. it really is good for everyone concerned. but just a little context, i will try to get it into 20 seconds. i made the point earlier when i called 30 days ago, no iranian leader has ever admitted to wanting nuclear weapons. from khomeini way back in 79 to presidento rafsanjani, i would you need god -- aberdeen a john -- abudinijad. the possession of these weapons is it illegal, immoral, un-islamic. no leader has ever proposed to even want to these weapons.

and a question for mr. calyx -- kalik. obama, ourent bush, centers, our congressman, nsm -- msnbc, all of our talking heads and pundits look at the iranians as if they want nuclear weapons. why is that premise excepted? accepteds that premise ? guest: i think that is a great question. what has made me and a lot of nuclear scientist nervous is the potential military development of that program, in richmond at levels that are too high then what is needed for domestic purposes. what is great about the deal now is that it lowered enrichment purposes. it lowered the number of centrifuges and it puts iran on

a path where he could never use the program for military purposes. want toain, we represent that we have offered spots on this program for despites from aipac and repeated requests we have action not heard back from them. warmed an organization called citizens for a nuclear free iran and they released this ad. let's watch. [video clip] >> the iran and nuclear deal. the deal or bad deal? they will keep their nuclear facilities. military sites can go on inspected. -- go and inspected. iran can build a nuclear weapon in two months. violated 20 international agreements. congress should reject a bad

deal. we need a better deal. ast: you see references to third deal. should we go back to the negotiation? guest: this seems like a fantasy to me. car,you buy a house, buy a you negotiate a deal and you don't always get what you want. but you can't go back a couple months later and renegotiate. especially since this is not a one-on-one negotiation. six world powers and iran had agreed to certain terms. passed to the un security council unanimously. this is something the entire world agrees with. it will bring their actions on board through the sanctions regime, we got them to the table and negotiated a strong deal. to then go back to the world and say we want to start over again is just unrealistic. jan: this is from jane --

who makes reference to aipac. ever talk to anyone other than the people in their pocket? caller: i am sick and tired of hearing the greedy republicans try to undo this agreement. the iranians are not the bad guys here. it is still the republicans who are so anxious to get us into another war. all they think about is how they can line their pockets with even they need from defense contractors who want them to put money into building planes that we don't need. let's put it where we really desperately needed, climate change and conquering that. they don't care about the terrific deal that has been brought about through the smarter heads that have prevailed and have chosen to be doves rather than hawks. senator -- y and

secretary kerry and secretary moniz should prevail. the president should prevail. shouldn't the president prevailed in this? we cannot let this go on. this is ridiculous. the poor iranians have to hear them being scapegoated all the time. this is not fair. let seal the deal once and for all. guest: i think there are two good points in their. one i made earlier. the diplomatic approach has been successful and i think is a good precedent for the use of diplomacy in general to advance our goals in the region. i think that is important point. host: we will go to brian joining us from new york who opposes this agreement. why? caller: thank you for taking my call.

gentleman, ithis is very hard. with all due respect, i will say what i have to say one quick sentence because it is hard to listen to. you are saying iran has never expressed interest in a nuclear bomb. to trust them at face value, they said we want to annihilate america. we want to annihilate israel. let's take them at their word. that is what they want to do. the reason i called is assuming the deal is good, which i don't, we see disputes constantly in the united nations about one country saying we want access. they say no. it goes back and forth. days.ill be 24 these disputes go on and on. disputes, all these different things where it drags on and on.

tremendousave a amount of time to do whatever it is they have to do in order to annihilate us and israel and everybody not in their camp. so we take them at their word. host: thank you, brian. guest: i think that is good about trust. i don't trust iran. the president does not trust iran. the people negotiating do not. they have a track world from -- track record that makes them untrustworthy. this deal is about verification. we put a deal in place that restricts the amount of nuclear material they have and puts and inspections regime in place that will make sure that if they achieved, we can catch them. the sanctions will snap back for the options we have now will be available to us. it is not about trust. it is about verification. host: mark is next from new hampshire. good morning. why do you support the agreement? caller: we have nuclear power.

why shouldn't other countries have it? israel has nuclear power. does anyone complain about that? bombsuilt 20 of nuclear -- they built plenty of nuclear bombs. you never hear anyone complain about it. if they want nuclear power, they should have it just like everyone else. who are we to tell anyone what they can have and can't have? thank you. i want to hear your answer. guest: thanks. i think there is one thing about nuclear power, why a lot of us in this country and around the world turned out is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons traditional countries around the world because they cause a nuclear arms race, destabilize the middle east and the world. do, this deal is trying to and i think accomplishes that, is making sure another country does not get a nuclear weapon,

does not start an arms race in the middle east which is a hotbed of conflict. we don't need more dangerous weapons in that dangerous part of the world. host: our next caller is blake joining us from alabama opposing the nuclear agreement with iran. caller: good morning. just a casual observer. it seems like there was a headline a couple of months ago that we have a jewish president. i guess they are talking about barack obama. it is ironic the first jewish handednt, so-called, over the iranian agreement that have 100%i parliament rejected. that is unbelievable. it seems like the jewish people,

they are unbelievably intelligent. i am an immigrant here for 30 years now. jewish people are unbelievably intelligent. i cannot imagine how much intelligence they have with science and technology. but it seems like they have a blind spot. other colors have pointed out -- other callers have pointed out barack obama apparently called first to ask them to start negotiations. guye guys -- i heard one two years ago, charlie rose, iranian negotiator. he said we have the know-how. we know what to do. no matter what we agree on, eventually if we have to make a bomb, we will make a bomb. guest: thanks. i would like to address a couple of misperceptions about israelis

and the american jewish community as it relates to this deal. in terms of the american jewish seems there is an impression we are in opposition to the deal when in fact they supported as much as the american people as a whole. that has been corroborated by other surveys as well. in terms of israelis, there is some opposition in israel particularly among elected political leaders. they are close to iran. they are nervous about changing the bounds of power. they don't want iran to get a nuclear weapon. i think that is understandable. but there is a real divide between political leaders and the national security establishment. generals, heads of the intelligence agencies, heads of the nuclear agencies. these, particularly retired with the nuclear physicists and military experts in the united states, agree with

the majority of americans, and agree with the even bigger majority of american jews that this deal is the best prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon and keep israel and america safer. the editor of "the weekly standard" has been critical of the agreement. he has another column today and makes the following point. he says members of congress should be proud to stand against a deal that empowers iran and that leaves nuclear infrastructure in place, and increases the chances of nuclear proliferation that funds iranian terror and increases the chances of regional wars. i think he has a complete misunderstanding of what the deal dones. this deal prevents iran from getting a nuclear weapon. his taking advice from someone that pushed so much for using is a hugeorce in iraq

mistake. we have seen the clear contrast between a diplomatic approach and how it can accomplish the goals we set forth in preventing nuclear weapons from expanding into new countries and the use of military force which has disastrous effects. we saw that in the iraq war. host: if you want minutes with our guest, with the j street group. good morning, kay. caller: good morning. i do miss the power the jewish hasy and israeli government over our government. i am disgusted to see these politicians going to visit netanyahu. all he wants to do is for us to do the bombing, do his dirty work for him. i said i think your program is great because it does thatin to a lot of people we do need to be able to speak

with people, even though we don't agree with many of their situations. thank you for taking my call. good luck. host: thank you. this morning on c.n.n., mike huckabee announced he is planning a return visit to israel. this will be among the topics. guest: i think mike huckabee has gone off the deep end on this deal. using holocaust imagery to talk about a diplomatic arms deal i think is reprehensible. and i think it puts a disservice to the real debate by those of this 100-plus page document. they are going to briefings. there talking to nuclear scientist deciding if this makes the united states, israel, and the middle east safer. he is pandering to what he believes some of us any pro-israel community want by saying this. but i think it does a disservice

by doing so. i expect he will lose a lot of support from the broader pro-israel community. host: from crossville, new york. credit is next. --craig is next. why do you oppose the deal? caller: i believe if a man like chuck schumer who has been our representative for years from new york, who has gotten a close look at this deal, that is something i have not done, the gentleman on your program has not done, and he sees the inside of this deal and does not believe it will work. you are putting our biggest ally, who is israel, in the middle east at risk. everybody can speculate and say they know the deal is going to be good. nobody has really read this deal. he has had staff read it. he has read it himself.

he believes this is a bad thing for israel. that if heto say is believes that, and he is a true america,for israel and if he truly believes this, then that is the opinion that should be put above the gentleman on your stage and anybody else calling in, including myself. i go by somebody that saw the agreement and believes in the agreement and knows what is in it and says no, this is a bad deal, get out of this thing, don't do it. that is all i called to say, sir. guest: thanks. i think senator schumer and members of congress and the president and myself have looked at this deal closely, are trying to make sure it accomplishes the goal to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. we have a shared goal. the question is about tactics. what bothered me is it seems

like the entire republican presidential field as well as the entire republican pocket cannot within minutes of the 100-plus page deal being released. i don't think they had the time to study it like senator shuman did, who met with a host of opinions to discuss and see if the deal would work. theye democratic side, have been looking at the deal and going to the briefings. senator schumer came to his believe the deal is bad for the united states and israel. 20 of his colleagues have come to another believe. they've also been to briefings and are also looking at this closely. they are american jewish senate leaders like dianne feinstein. they also care deeply about israel and stability in the middle east. i think there was a different judgment call there. host: we will go to bill joining us from norfolk, connecticut. caller: first of all, i don't

think iran if they get a bomb, they cannot take us on. we have enough bombs to blow up the world 50 times. i am sick and tired of these banks. they make money off the wars, lending the u.s. money. the military industrial complex cannot win a war. when you take people like lieberman, schumer, and aipac, none of them have ever been in the service. that is why i would never go in the service again to defend people like that. the country is going broke. but there is a certain group of people getting rich off of this. even the news media, the major news media, that is why most people hate the major news media. they are 397 people.

when the iraq war started, they say we should not have had it. the stadiums owned by military-industrial complex people. fox news scared chuck schumer into doing it. of course, he never served. joe lieberman never served. thank you. guest: thanks. i think a broader point taken from your comment is, can diplomacy be used as an effective tool to accomplish the united states' goals in the middle east and around the world? i think this deal shows it can. host: the president has been critical of his opponents. he has said republicans are opposed because it is the president. yet you do have people like senator chuck schumer, a democrat, who oppose the deal. does that competition white house strategy? guest: i think the president could come out saying he loves kittens, and republicans would say, why do you hate dogs? i think there's something to the quick response we saw blanketed

from republicans within minutes of the deal being released, that they were not willing to read, get briefed on it, and make an informed decision. i don't think we saw that was senator schumer or 20 of his colleagues who decided the other way on the democratic side. there was a review of this complex deal, which i believe it's good for israel and the united states, as most democratic senators have. host: daniel kalik from j street group, thank you for being with us. again, an open invitation for a pack -- aipac to join us anytime to discuss this as well. this month marks the 50th anniversary of the riots outside of los angeles known as the watts riots. $40 million in damage at the time. more than three dozen deaths. cbs put together a documentary that focused on the riots. it was released in december of 1955.

in a moment, gerald horne is going to be joining us to talk about the significance of the events 50 years later. put first, this from cbs news. [video clip] [yelling] >> it was the most widespread racial violence in american history. people driving through the right area were considered fair game whether young, old, or women. their cars were battered and burned. in mobs might grow disappointment when a white guy way and sheer like a football crowd when a car went up in flames. the burning and looting, the shooting and beating, went on

for nearly a week. 34 persons were killed. all but five negroes. more than 1000 persons injured or wounded. more than 200 business places destroyed by fire. 700 more smashed, looted, and damaged. negro merchants sought to protect themselves with hurriedly scrawled appeals. the cost in dollars even now is hard to estimate. perhaps $50 million, $60 million, or more. nearly 4000 persons arrested. get out of the car with your hands up. get your hands up, i said. drop that purse and get your hands up.

get them up. get your hands up. that was a cbs news documentary which first aired december 7, 1955. you will have a chance to watch that documentary this afternoon on c-span [no audio] at -- cspan3 at 4:00. it will re-air tomorrow night on cspan3's american history tv. we would like to thank cbs news for allowing c-span carry that documentary and give you a sense of what happened 50 years ago. gerald horne is joining us from raleigh, north carolina. is a professor at the university of houston. and sunday morning -- good sunday morning. thank you for being with us. the rights began august 11, 1955. just outside of los angeles. what happened? in the early evening of

august 11, 1965, marquette frye, a young black man, was stopped by the law enforcement authorities. the predictable happened in the sense that there was this rumor floated that the authorities were not only manhandling mr. frye, but supposedly although young, mishandling a pregnant black woman. that ignited the severe fracas that lasted for a week or so and has been bequeathed to us as the watts revolt of 1965. host: let's put into context the timing. president johnson had just signed into law the civil rights act. voting rights act was coming into play as well. that was part of the backdrop of the issue of race relations that was front and center in this country during that time. guest: you are correct. that was this perception

significant progress was being made on the race relations front. but in the neighborhoods of south los angeles, it was difficult to perceive progress was taking place. keep in mind police brutality and misconduct, which is with us today, was no stranger to south los angeles in august, 1955. not only that, but unemployment was spectacularly rising. you have thisme, housing crisis still with us today in southern california whereby wages were stagnating. yet the rental costs were escalating. all of this created this nasty brew that exploded spectacularly in august of 1955. i should also mention the international context. president johnson was also in the midst of escalating the war in vietnam. there was a lot of pressure to recruit young black men.

of course, there was opposition to going into the military to fight for rights abroad they did not enjoy at home. all of this helped to create a toxic mr. that exploded -- toxic mixture that exploded. host: watts is just outside of downtown los angeles. geographically, where is it located and what was this community like in the 1960's? who lived there? guest: it is interesting that today, watch is about 70% latino. back then, it was a heavily black community. keep in mind the beginnings of a sprawling and large black community in southern california and the west coast begins circa 1941-1942 when you have the population of japanese descent ranging from seattle to san diego including los angeles. the communities

that have been known as the tokyo almost overnight become bronzeville. at the same time, you have ultraconservative positive raining in los angeles, as exemplified by the mayor and his police chief. that did not necessarily agree with the black population that existed at that time. host: 34 deaths as a result of the riots in watts 50 years ago and more than $40 million in damage. the film courtesy of cbs news. another portion of that documentary includes a familiar face, a veteran of the johnson and later nixon administration, syntel daniel patrick moynihan went on to serve in the senate in new york. at that time, he was the assistant secretary of labor talking about society and a sociological study about african americans, especially in southern california. here is more from cbs news. [video clip] negroesirst study of

and how they live this country was completed months ago. our government which conducts surveys of everything from sugar beets to social habits in cambodia have never before taken a close look at the 21 million am -- negroes in american. daniel moynihan was in charge of the study and staggered by it. wen 100 --daniel moynihan: have had 35 years of disastrous unemployment for the negro male. he has never gotten over the depression. had four years in the second world war and in the korean war getting better recently. in rates of unemployment, teenage unemployment in the white and negro world is almost 25%. that is a social crime. that is an outrage. there is no society the world

that would let 25% of teenagers go unemployed. about one quarter of negro families are headed by women. the divorce rate is 2.5 times what it is. the number of fatherless children keeps growing. all these things getting worse, not better over recent years. host: daniel patrick moynihan 50 years ago. gerald horne, the problem continues today. guest: unemployment remains the staggering problem. is probably underestimated with regard to the african american community. have do think moynahan may misjudged some of what he was looking at. i think it would have been more appropriate to look at the black community is akin to a canary in the mine. that is to say, the black community's an early indicator of what was to fall the country at large. ratesample, take divorce which have grown spectacularly in the last 50 years. if you look at the phenomenon a

single mothers, it seemed in 1955 that was unique and peculiar to the black community. but we see in 2015 that is not the case. one of our viewers saying i have much respect for daniel patrick moynihan. he told it like it was. we will share your tweets. gerald horne is our guest. he a professor at the university of history -- houston. teaches history and african american studies. he joins us from north carolina. the cbs news document repairs on tvan3's american history today and tomorrow prime time. from vallejo california, good morning. i am wondering how far back in our black history you go. do you go back to win we were -- to when we were persecuted and pushed out of israel as we are

today? blacks,each students hispanics, and native americans in america today are the original jews of the holy bible? did you even know that, number one? as far as oppression and all of that we are going through, those are just curses from the lord. the lord is cursing us for turning against him. host: we will get a response. professor horne. guest: i'm glad that question was asked because it provides me the opportunity to mention a book i published last year on the founding of the united states where i argued the founding was based in no small part on the desire by the southerners to evade abolitionism in london. the african population in the 18th century was largely opposed to slavery. therefore, that set up a dynamic where the black population was oftentimes viewed as an enemy of

the state which continued during the jim crow regime and arguably continues today and help to shed light on this enormous rise in police killings that has taken place in baltimore, north charleston, cleveland, ferguson, staten island, and elsewhere. grasped, until that is we will have difficulty understanding what is going on with regard to the black population in the united states of america. host: our phone lines are open democrats, and, independents. professor horne, how did we get to that point in terms of improved race relations? you talked about the disparity between black and white neighborhoods and the issues in ferguson and baltimore with white officer's killing unarmed black men. guest: i think some of the

things being discussed now in terms of reforms, police training, body cameras on officers, need to be limited. i do think it would be wise if the united states were to immolate south africa after apartheid which have a reconciliation commission to investigate the ravages of apartheid and try to come up with remedies. as real fromates slavery to jim crow today without any official investigative bodies examining the consequences of the previous epics. conyers fromohn detroit has introduced h.r. 40 woodward involved what i am suggesting as we speak. host: kentucky on the democrats line, good morning. caller: thank you, c-span. the do great work -- you do

great work. i would love to hear professor ho address the current situation where we find many whiterne folks wanting to blame barack obama for our current racial strife which seems a .omplete misreading of history i cannot frame in my mind how folks want to blame barack obama for ferguson. i think he made a comment my son will be trayvon martin. white people have said, see that? if you could talk about that, i would appreciate it. thanks again, c-span. guest: is striking the caller suggests are of those that feel barack obama is responsible for the deteriorating racial relations situation in the united states of america. others feel he has not been sufficiently aggressive in addressing this question. in any case, i think it would be

one-sided to suggest the president inaugurated in january of 2009 somehow is responsible for the ravages of slavery and jim crow that stretches back centuries. it seems that is scapegoating in the purest sense of the term. host: professor horne, this is on -- this is from one of our viewers. did the watts riots help or harm the cause? guest: i think it was a mixed report. there were some attempts at affirmative action that came after august of 1965. the major newspaper of that region decided it would be worthwhile to have black, minority reporters covering sensitive racial matters. they began a program of hiring. you saw a certain kind of affirmative action within the university of california system, within the state university system. but it is also fair to say there

was a white backlash, what might be called the counterrevolution, against the idea of racial equality. this was represented in november of 1966 when ronald reagan was elected governor of california the feeding -- defeating pat brown on the premise there would berkeley,s 1964 or 1964. there would be no such happenings on his watch. that helped to catapult him into the white house in 1980 and helped to inaugurate a a backlash against civil rights progress are presented recently with the supreme court getting -- eviscerating the voting rights act of 1960 52 years ago -- 1965, 2 years ago. host: let's bring it to today. a tweet from jane.

have race relations improved under president obama? guest: the sense of what metrics you are using, certainly if you look at newspaper headlines coming out of ferguson, baltimore, cleveland, and staten island, and given the fact the so-called oath keepers, these armed american men were patrolling the streets of ferguson a few days ago without any apparent interference from the police authorities. given such a scenario, it would be difficult to say things are moving forward. of i understand the impetus the listener's response because if you look over the last half-century, there are more professors at university of in 2015 than there were in 1965. the same could be said for campuses from the atlantic to the pacific. host: our guest, professor

gerald horne. he is a graduate of columbia university and earned his law degree from the university of california,'s undergraduate from princeton university, and he is currently the chair of history and african american studies at the university of houston. he's joining us from raleigh, north carolina. turner is on the phone from california on our line for independents. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i would like to thank the professor for nailing it on the head and observing the condition of black lives is like the canary in the coal mine. blackout of black students,s prevented black-and-white, from learning about the real history of slavery and racism in this country. i am quite sure he is aware in

formedr. carter woodson black history week due to the lack of information about the contributions of the african americans to this country. when people are complaining the situation with black people, academically they have no knowledge of it because it was not taught. host: we will get a response. thank you, turner. guest: i think the caller makes a sound point. is a member of the editorial -- as a member of editorial of the "journal of african american history" started by carter woodson, where marking our centennial next month in atlanta.

certainly, the need for our organization and journal remains pressing because i do think there needs to be more progress in terms of the understanding and copy engine -- comprehension of the travails and curfews grecians -- contributions of black americans. host: this shows the damage to businesses and homes in the watts area of los angeles. 34 individuals were killed. who is responsible for those deaths? guest: the law enforcement authorities. part of the problems in los angeles during that tumultuous week was the politicians decided to invite the national guard in to patrol the streets because it was felt the los angeles police department was not up to the task. the problem was the national guard was not trained in terms of dealing with protesting

civilians. who came intomen south los angeles were not accustomed to dealing with black people, were not accustomed to dealing with street protests. they had itchy trigger fingers. that led to these killings that you are now describing. from lidia is joining us indianapolis on the democrats line. caller: i'm calling from the hapless, minnesota. my perspective is a little odd because i'm almost 60. i spent the first 30 years of my life in texas, including houston. now i have spent almost 30 years in minnesota. i have been a person -- i am white, but i have been antiracism since the late 1970's. comments about the truth and reconciliation in south africa was raised.

i have searched out black history since i was a high school student because i felt like after segregation, how could i understand these people i had no exposure to? america has only begun to deal with the impacts of slavery, jim crow, and it demonstrates his own in the last 50 years -- endemic racism in the last 50 years. as has been noted, we have had this huge white backlash. i want to suggest we think eager -- think bigger. i know nobody wants to talk about reparations, but i feel there is a way to deal with some of the structural inequality if we were willing to have a small business administration agency dedicated to investments in black-owned businesses. to have a willing

department of education willing to deliberately invest in historically black colleges and universities as well as scholarships for black students. but finally, i think we also have to look at affect our schools are more segregated now than they have been -- that our schools are more segregated now than they have been since 1968. guest: i would like to echo the caller's intelligent comments about the bill introduced by john conyers of michigan with regards to reparations. the journal i mentioned has devoted many pages to the question of reparations. i would direct the caller to that publication. i should also say given the conservative tilt in the united states today, it seems to me if there is going to be meaningful steps towards equality and reparations it will require an international movement.

if you look at the history of black people in north america, you will find international movements were necessary to destroy slavery. british abolitionism was probably more important than u.s. abolitionism in the destruction of slavery. if you look at the retreat of jim crow beginning in the 1950's, if you look at the supreme court decision and brief submitted by the state department on that case, you will find the state department suggesting the united states has to retreat from jim crow because it can better charge the soviet union few and rights violations if it gets its own house in order with regards to human rights. one of the problems today is the inability or unwillingness to draw such global connections, particularly on the part of some of our leadership. host: we are talking about watts riots 50 years later. a reminder the cbs documentary that aired in 1965 is airing on cspan3. every weekend on cspan3, we

focus on american history tv. our guest is gerald horne. this is a tweet from a viewer saying, have you been personally affected by racism? guest: absolutely. i grew up in jim crow st. louis. one of the reasons i began to study history and eventually go to law school before a history professor was because i was trying to understand how and why it was a could not go into certain restaurants, stores, or why i was followed when i went to certain stores. this was happening from an early age and has continued to this day, even though i have a head full of gray hair. teenager think i was a that is more likely to commit street crimes when one considers how i have been treated by the police, even in houston, texas, in recent months and years. host: steve is joining us from

south carolina. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. you mentioned earlier you have a new book coming out and quickly went through the ideas of the book. i frankly missed your point. i would like you to tell us more about your upcoming book and elaborate on its themes in more detail. please include the title and publisher of your upcoming book. host: thank you, steve. guest: the book was published last year by new york university press. it.ink he is referring to the thesis is one of the motive forces for the revolt against british rule in 1776 was the desire by an influential group of southerners to evade british england whichn

seemed to suggest the decision which applied to england would migrate across the atlantic. which in my estimation makes the creation of the united states more can to the unilateral declaration of independence in southern rhodesia of 1985 where there was an attempt to a white minority regime to evade african majority rule. the leader of the outlaw regime said as much, comparing his regime to 7076. what i'm arguing in this book is the persecution we have witnessed of black people in north america since the late 18th century stems from the fact that black people opposed the creation of the slaveholders republic, opposed the jim crow regime that followed the defeat of the confederacy in the civil war, and therefore has been treated as an outlaw population. and therefore has been treated as an enemy of the state which is reflected in the police

killings that have pockmarked the landscape in recent months and years. host: from new mexico, chuck is next on the republican line. caller: i have been listening. i guess i should tell you i am asian-american. my mother came from hawaii. removed to new jersey -- we moved to new jersey, so i was raised in a hostile environment for me. expressed no one has professor. a he was the first president of kenya. waspresidential saying [speaking another language] which means freedom and self-reliance in swahili.

the professor keep saying the state or entity has to solve the problem. he was talking about freedom from colonialism. are extrapolated that to the people -- i extrapolated that to the people. i don't know why it is the individual that has to rise above this. i was disappointed in barack obama, that he did not try to raise the individual up. but instead he put blame on folks. the individual, to me, is the key to the whole situation for things to get better. unless the individual has confidence in himself, it is not going to work. i was beat up and everything when i was a kid. but i was very fortunate i had a mother that pushed me to say i could do the best i can. seeing all of this

strife and other things. i thought the individual was the big deal. i never hear anybody say that. that is my comment. i was wondering what the professor thinks about that, that the individual should look to be self-reliant. that is all. host: chuck, thank you from new mexico. professor horne? guest: the point is well taken. but let me remind the caller when japanese-americans were interned from seattle to san in 1941-1942, the individual merit of a particular japanese-american was not relevant. they were all interned because of this sweeping, racial categorization into which they were placed. i should also say the same holds true for black people.

irrespective of our individual merit, the broad brush of racism afflicts us all. i should also mention the plight of black people is different than other minorities, including asian-americans, because we were property in one of the largest uncompensated appropriations of property. during the civil war, billions of dollars in slave property were taken from slave owners without compensation. that left the slave owners and their families embittered and helps to underscore the kind of persecution that continues to reflect -- a flicked by people today who are not only victims of racism but also targeted because they represent in human form lost fortunes. host: our guest is professor gerald horne who teaches at the university of houston. you probably heard overnight of

the passing of julian von, 75 years old. he had been battling an endless -- illness. he died in florida. he marched with dr. martin luther king. his name was placed in nomination to be vice president of running mate. he has a long legacy with regard to black issues. he stepped down from the naacp in 2010. what is his legacy? is an enormous legacy. it will be difficult to fill his shoes. bond was the son of a college president who spent many of his early years in nashville, tennessee, and where his father was president of the historically black school. he was a founder of the student nonviolent in committee founded in raleigh, north carolina, more than 55 years ago. he was an antiwar activist. he was an elected representative

in the georgia state legislature. they tried to keep him from taking his seat. he prevailed by arguing his case all the way to the spring court. he was a founder of the southern poverty law center which is still one of our most important organization monitoring white supremacist organizations. it will be difficult to fill the shoes of julian bond. host: from florida, lewis is next. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. hello? virginia. good morning, c-span. as far aske to say unemployment among black people, i went in the military at 17. i got injured and came out at 19. i have always worked. there is always some kind of job you can get.

petersburg, in the morning when the weather was decent, you see a lot of black cold 45 --rown bags, 5's with cigarettes of marijuana. on the other corner you see young black girls with babies, teenagers like 13 and 14 years old. that is not the white man's fault. that is their fault. you have a lot of black people counted as unemployed that have never worked and never intend to work. but yet they are counted as unemployed. i have worked since i was 17. i am 81 now, raised four children. host: you are old enough to

remember the coverage of the watts riots 50 years ago. caller: definitely. i remember a lot of things. i lived through segregation. i lived through integration. i had four brothers. all of us were in the military at the same time. they were in korea. i was in morocco. i had another brother [indiscernible] in for thestayed vietnam war. he came out a paraplegic. i just want to say one more thing. my great-grandfather was [indiscernible] my great-grandmother for less -- was from new york. her tribe was brought to north

carolina during the indian wars. on the other side of my family, they were slaves. my great-grandmother and great-grandfather were slaves. but they survived it. in this country, you may not make top dollar, but you can always survive. host: thanks for adding your voice to the conversation. gerald horne, your response? guest: i appreciate the sentiment the caller has expressed, but i would like to remind the caller that what he was describing on the street corners of his town, those are effects. they are not necessarily causes. to solve the problem he is underscoring, we have to look at causes. i don't think you'll find the causes necessarily on the street corners. you will find the causes quite frankly in the halls of power in washington and on wall street. it seems to me that is where we need to be focused. host: one tweet with regard to

julian bond. one viewer saying, rest in peace. i had the pleasure of having lunch with him many years ago, describing him a giant -- as a giant among men. julian bond passed away this weekend. he was 75 years old. john, from vancouver, good morning. turn the volume down on your set. go ahead with your question. caller: i am similar to the 81-year-old person who just called. i am an asian-american, 80 years old. i was interned for four years during the second world war. my mother never got over it. she died two weeks before i graduated from high school. experienceed by that

. for 40 years of my life, i could not speak of it, so i understand what it is to have deprivation of civil rights. we overcame it. without anyit protests, but by example of our achievements when we were given a chance. i would like to ask the professor if he would join with those of us in other minority groups who have achieved by and large our civil rights to see if there are lessons to be learned as to how we could help the black people in this country to achieve their rights as well. host: john, thank you for the call. guest: well, i would like to congratulate the caller for that proposal.

let me also say in washington, d.c., there are civil rights black that bring together americans, latinos, and asian-americans. i would point the caller to those groups. i would also say the previous caller to this one that had a similar sort of issue raised the question of asian-americans. in a book i wrote about hawaii published a couple of years ago about the joint struggle in that link together black americans and asian-americans, including some of the people friendly with the family of barack obama, i'm speaking of frank marshall davis. i would like to point the caller to some of the work i have done in this area. host: next is sharon joining us from kingston, illinois. good morning. caller: to see something positive come out of protests is always good, especially if you have a plan as to where your

protest is going. i want to say i think it is common knowledge among white people that all the jerky cops hassle everybody just as much, equally, you know. it is the same for white people. we go through the same struggle of the lady who did not put out her cigarette. i can see that happening to me. skinned, it iser common knowledge among white people that we get talked to jerky by the cops. you know they are doing worse things. i have spanish friends that get pushed around. my african american friends say they always get pulled over. my white friends heart the ever get pulled over. my spanish-speaking friends say we get pulled over, watched, and beat up more than other groups. i just want to say as a white person, is common knowledge. i know other white people have friends they have heard stories from.

i want to say as a white person i have been hassled by cops a lot. they write down whatever they want in their reports. cost me $10,000. luckily, i won in court. hassling happens. you have nice police who would never do that. but you know there are other percentages. host: thank you. i appreciate the call. we will get a response. guest: i appreciate the sentiment. i would like to echo the sentiment. i tell my students on a regular basis racism and bigotry is not like a localized anesthetic that can only be directed at the black population exclusively. inevitably, there is a spillover effect. louisiana, you had a

number of italian americans lynched. you had thery ago, lynching of a jewish-american. that went directly to more jewish-american interest in civil rights including the naacp. that alliance was very important in terms of the overthrow of legalized jim crow. i think it is important for your callers to recognize inevitably there will be a spillover affect. you cannot allow police misconduct and brutality to be targeted to black people and assume only black people will be targeted. inevitably, other communities will be targeted. host: what is the lesson of the watts riots? guest: part of the lesson of what happened in los angeles is the question of organization. 1955 was august of mccarthyism and the red scare which led to the evisceration

and destruction of many racially integrated organizations of the left. this meant in august of 1965 when people took to the streets, there was not the organizational infrastructure to make sure their sacrifice would be rewarded sufficiently. even though as noted, there was a kind of affirmative action that did emerge from the ashes of august of 1965. but that was followed by a white backlash or counterrevolution which arguably we are still enmeshed in. host: gerald horne, who is a professor at the university of houston, thank you for adding your perspective to this topic. a reminder, on american history a chance0 on cspan3, to watch the cbs news documentary. you can check out all of our offerings online anytime at www.c-span.org. we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern. is the founder of

a grassroots effort to amend the constitution. he will be here to talk about that. downey will be your on populism issues. the founder of peta on endangered species and big-game hunting. our guests and topics tomorrow morning. "newsmakers" is next. thank you for joining us. i hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week ahead. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

quacks on c-span, newsmakers is next with tim pawlenty. then, on the iowa state fair with bernie sanders, hillary clinton, and donald trump. and then at 12:40, jeb bush delivering a speech at the reagan library in california. >> he was the presidential hopeful and went on to serve as cochair on mitt romney's campaign. we will be talking about financial services, regulation, and politics. tracy is financial regulation reporter of the wall street journal. before we get to them