from the nation magazine. after that, jj mesmeric talks talks about the most fragile nationstates around the world. ♪ host: good morning on this holiday weekend. it is july 3. we will talk about the latest turns on the road to the white house. we will also break down a new report on fragile nations in the world. unifyinglso talk about patriotism in these united states. hillary clinton and donald trump have toured through the rust belt to talk about jobs and the economy. ohio, michigan, illinois and wisconsin are being viewed as the keys the that

could sway the presidential election. we begin our program this morning asking what is the best way to bring jobs back to the rest else and -- to the rust belt and who do you trust to do that? you can also catch up with us on social media. on twitter. on facebook. a very good sunday morning to you. we begin talking to viewers in ust belt aboutr the best way to bring back jobs. the young -- the unemployment rate in this region is different. 6.7 percent.

in ohio, 5.1%. indiana, 5%. michigan, 4.7%, the national rate. with those numbers in mind, the leading candidates for the presidency traveled to those states this past week to talk about jobs and the economy. some of the headlines generated from those visits include this from political -- uprising from the rust belts. . in the new york times today, -- rust geltnald trump's allu -- belt allure. pittsburghp was near when he talked about the legacy of jobs being lost in the rust belt.

donald trump: pittsburgh played a central role in building our nation. the legacy of pennsylvania steel workers lives in the bridges and skyscrapers that make up our great american landscape. loyalty wasers repaid with total betrayal. our politicians have pursued a policy of globalization, moving our jobs, our wealth, and our factories to mexico and overseas. localization has made the financial elite -- globalization has made the financial elite very wealthy. i used to be one of them. i'd hate to say it. it that it hasy left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and

heartache. isn subsidized steel something into our markets, the politics have ruben -- have proven to do nothing. we have watched it from the sidelines as our jobs vanished. many of these areas have still never recovered and never will unless i become president. host: we are talking about the thislled rust belt morning. talking to viewers in that part of the country. ohio, illinois, pennsylvania and those states. we are asking what the best way to that area.jobs donald is up first calling from

michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. a member ofi was unions and management for many years. i was involved in supervision in a lot of these plants. problems on both sides. al companies have to make profit or they would not be in business but the people that work there have to make a living wage so they can support their families. the 1960's and 1950's and so forth, the unions were incredibly strong and i hate to say it that in many, many cases, they would defend very bad

workers and they would encourage not working and they would cause a lot of problems that way. when the a turn japanese started sending their products over here. they were laughed at originally but they were very well made and good quality. and they started taking hold. they were extremely efficient. our companies were not. i can verify that. -- and the management started wanting to move. originally, there was a strong , during theexico reagan administration, that wanted to move a trial area into mexico. i do not really know how that happened. but anyhow, --

most people do in your city today? caller: it is a beautiful town on lake minnis -- on lake michigan. we have a lot of tourists and some industry. it is not like it used to be. ludington is a small town. anded to work near lansing jackson. basically a town we decided to retire in because we love it here. host: are you paying much attention to the candidates this cycle? did you hear any of the speeches? speeches,have heard my friend. i voted for richard nixon three times. now but theret

was a time when i was a hard-core republican. i have seen both sides. frome seen managements go giving into unions all of the vicious.ecoming , i won'tre i retired say where from, and this manufacturing part of this small taking the to mexico jobs there for $.55 an hour. therenly paid the people up to 10 hours a day but they could work them longer. you cannot compare that to the american worker. you cannot make a living like that. i appreciate the view from

ludington, michigan. thank you for setting the stage for our discussion today. we are speaking to viewers just in the rust belt area. we will show you those -- that map for our purposes this morning. we won to hear from callers in those states about how the best way to bring jobs back to those states and who you trust to do that. the new york times story today -- donald trump's rust belt a llure is datelined from greensburg, pennsylvania. the story notes that mr. donald trump's make america great again resonates with many of the

region's workers whose hopes have been pulled down by the disadvantaged mills and coal mines. labor power helped keep the area solidly democratic in the past but it is no longer. we want to hear from you, our viewers, in those rust belt states regarding your views of jobs in the area. bob is with us. caller: good morning. we need to get rid of obamacare. here --the factories of our friends were set .ack on their hours who is in thene

arer crust said our taxes too high for industry. we are one of the worst countries for taxing our industry. they can go overseas and get better deals. if they do that, let us tax that money because it doesn't seem fair either. i trust the republicans because we have had eight years of what with the democrats? i believe get rid of obamacare and quit taxing our industries so that little companies like ma and pa kent hired people like hireused to -- can people like they used to. those are my thoughts. host: going to clinton,

pennsylvania where ray is where ray isd -- waiting. caller: i am retired now but i used to work in a deal plant -- plant.teel the entire plant was six miles long? caller: yes. they would make steel, finish the products and ship it off the river. host: what is happening there today? caller: it is gone. there is nothing left. our legislative district here -- the

representative was the 218th vote, he was a democrat, that passed nafta. the steelworker union here in there was a guy on your program not too long ago that said it was george bush one that passed nafta. it was not. it was bill clinton that passed nafta. he's kind it and twisted arms. representative who was later voted out to pass nafta. ont: passed in the house november 17, 1990 three and went into effect january 1, 1994. caller: you can bring up the videos but bill clinton and al gore went out to the midwest, the rust belt and campaigned

against nafta. that it was bad and republicans were pushing it and we would lose a lot of jobs. when he became president, he turned 180 degrees and twisted arms. why would you vote for something like that? that heesentative said promised all sorts of economic aid for our area which never came of course. era: we are in another where trade deals are a new part of the discussion. the transpacific partnership. what are you hearing from politicians today? do you trust politicians anymore today regarding trade deals? trust because no of nafta. bill clinton said it would destroy jobs. like ross perot said -- you will hear a giant sucking sound down

in mexico and that is where they have come. we lost over 5 million jobs in this country -- not all manufacturing but also surrounding manufacturing, little stores and shops. i want to ask you a question. nafta do carrier corporation out in indiana? 1500 jobs. for good did it do them that company to go down to want to ray, mexico and leave -- down , mexico and leave them here. host: we will take that question to our viewers as we continue our discussion with the viewers just in those rust belt states. there is a map right there. we are only talking to viewers

in those states because that has been the focus of the presidential candidates over the past weeks. several speeches and chores. hillary clinton was in ohio last week and she spoke about this issue of trade deals and companies that try to exploit american workers. hillary clinton: when companies take taxpayer dollars with a one dollar -- with one hand and give out pink slips with the other and ship hundreds of jobs overseas, we will make them pay back those tax benefits and we will reinvest that money into workers and communities and we tax slap a tax -- an exit on those companies who are avoiding paying their fair share of taxes. [applause] we will defend american jobs and american workers by saying no to bad trade deals like the

transpacific partnership and unfair trade practices like when china dumps cheap steel in our markets. i am going to a point a trade prosecutor -- i am going to a ppoint a trade prosecutor. host: that was hillary clinton in ohio this past week. we want to hear from viewers in that part of the country. your thoughts on how to bring jobs back to that region. raymond is with us. caller: good morning. and havesign engineer been in business for 40 years. articlethe 1970's, the

[indiscernible] had aappened was that gm ceo who was known as a being counter. nter. when thatu happens, there is no innovation for new products. they write a lot of us off. now, new products are stifled. now? what do you do caller: i still design. who came in? the japanese.

and they said that they would do it. gone downhill from that point on. counters are a big problem with all of the inner city. ginny is in lancaster, ohio. a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. way not know what the best to bring back jobs. if i did i would be running for president but i do believe donald trump can do it because he has people that work for him. clinton, you need a dictionary to know what she is talking about. host: what did you do in lancaster, ohio? caller: i don't work anymore but i was a paralegal. host: what do most people do?

factories? caller: some factory jobs. there is anchor hocking. the biggest employer is the hospital. thank you for that view from lancaster. david is in grand rapids, michigan. a democrat. what is the best way to bring jobs back to the rust belt states? a big stain ons the democratic side of the aisle. i grew up in a neighborhood on the west side of the grand rapids that was -- where the houses were balked -- were ought by the workers from ge.

we need to penalize companies that go away. there are two things about nafta. the promise of education. i never saw that happen. all of those promises from bill clinton regarding high paying jobs. to low-paying jobs would go mexico but that just never happened. those low-paying jobs stayed here. people trying to buys homes are working at burger king. clinton behillary tainted by that? caller: the speech you just played -- it all sounds good and and a. -- and dandy. ifis the answer to nafta -- we cannot repeal nafta, we have to penalize companies. profits ising of

what is driving this. these companies that have made profits for decades or centuries --don't they have enough money? does it come into be nice to your employees? where does the heart come in? i just see a bunch of selfishness. bill clinton helped them do this. always be a lifelong democrat but i believe the answer is that we have to come up with some ideas to penalize the people that use nafta which is the law of the land. host: will you vote for hillary clinton? caller: you know it. and climate change is the number one issue. there is no place to work if we are frying our planet. int: let us go to steve chatsworth, illinois.

we are talking about the best way to bring jobs back. what you think about the term " i want to" caller: talk more about the dnc party and what they want to do. party wants to have tpp, fracking, they want to destroy our planet even more. for the bernie sanders reporters dnchat is exactly what the party wants to do. you can google it. i googled it yesterday. host: we will go to hayden in belfry, ohio. an independent. your thoughts on the best way to bring jobs back to the rust belt

. caller: i am a communist so i believe that capitalism is to blame for this issue. capitalismis him -- goes against human nature and exploits the workers. people like the democrats and republicans will not do any -- will not do anything because they are part of the capitalist system. host: how did you become a communist growing up in belfry, ohio? ofler: i see the suffering the workers and around be in terrible conditions. the various chemical plants here. read marx. i decided the best choice would be to become an anarchist

communist and abolish the bourgeois state and establish a worksworkers' unoiion that to progress the rest of humanity. host: we are taking calls from just the rust belt states. we showed you that headline earlier. but -- "uprising in the rust belt." clinton country both times in the 1990's and in the pocket of al gore in 2000. while the county narrowly went to george w. bush in 2004, the area was back to supporting democrats in 2008. hillary clinton won there and then barack obama won in the fall.

though he lost in a veritable slam -- landslide. republicans have gained nearly 1500 registered voters in cambria county. that trend is playing out statewide in pennsylvania. the question that is posed in that article is -- are there and enough cambria counties out there for donald trump to win that state and other key states in the rust belt. let us go to rich in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. a democrat. -- readi am part of the ricting.ecting -- redist

not understand that donald trump is a fraud. every project he is -- every isduct he is involved with made overseas. he talks about his suits and how he cannot find anyone to make them. he did not want to pay the workers enough to make his suits here. rubio saidty, marco he did not look very hard for a company there. him asaid he could show company in florida to make his hats though he will have to pay more for them than he can get them for in bangladesh or china. host: voters are talking about their support for donald trump.

we had callers earlier today saying that bill clinton and nafta were part of the reason why they lost jobs in the region and they do not trust the clintons. there is a frustration out there after eight years of a democrat as president. amongu seeing that debate people in your area of pittsburgh? caller: i am seeing that debate but the problem is -- from day one, obama was told that anything he would do would be opposed. bel ryan is still going to the speaker and he has already said that and it -- everything donald trump wants to do, he will oppose. donald trump cannot do that as president -- putting terrorists on products. tarrifsng

on products. that money has to be appropriated to build donald trump's wall. but paul ryan has said he would not do that. people say -- donald trump could not do any worse but oh, absolutely he could do worse. the democrats have to turn it around and get out of these bad trade deals but donald trump is not the answer. host: we have also been looking as we talk about bringing jobs back to the rust belt states. lost steelabout the jobs. sandwich says that donald trump is not going to bring back the dirty low skilled jobs. if you want jobs back, go back

to school and be retrained for the jobs that will be here. we want to hear from the viewers specifically in those six states of the rust belt. we want to hear your thoughts about what is happening in your part of the country and who you trust to bring jobs that. us go to john in philadelphia, pennsylvania. caller: thank you for having me. first of all, my daughter is working on the democratic convention as an electrician. i spent 20 years in the union. i did not know this was a rust belt stage. only way to bring jobs back fix the system.

there is no other way. we have all of these resources like natural gas, including fracking, destroying our water system which is going to be the most precious commodity. not be going to war for oil, it will be over water. 20 years. first of all, the welfare system. if you took all of the outsourcing in america and brought that into america, that would create jobs right here. i am sure there are a lot of people that go us money from getting into other -- that owe us money from getting into other countries' business. there is no way donald trump is going to build a wall. that is ridiculous. i hope people come to their senses and start voting. that is what we have to do. vote. people need to create jobs and change the system.

the system is broken all the way around. will keep taking your calls from viewers in those so-called rust belt states. we want to show you some other headlines. here is the front page from the washington post. fbi agents interviewed hillary clinton for three and a half years -- three-and-a-half hours yesterday. that investigation is drawing to a close. the clinton campaign spokesman said that clinton gave a voluntary interview this morning about her e-mail arrangements as secretary. looking into that investigation more in our next segment of the washington journal. we will be talking about campaign 2016 and a sunday political roundtable. on the front page of the new york times, and other papers, this obituary. iesel who became an

eloquent witness for the 6 s killed in the holocaust, died at his home on saturday in manhattan. he was the author of several dozen books and was a charismatic speaker. 1980 six he was awarded the nobel peace prize. you can -- in 1986, he was awarded the nobel peace prize. we continue our discussion with the viewers in the rust belt states. what do you think of that term? caller: i have no problem with that term. let me get to the point. you are conducting this program without basically defining and

describing the origin of nafta. i will read quickly about four sentences from wikipedia about nafta. halloween diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990, among the three nations in george h.w. bush h w bush, canadian prime minister brian already, and the mexican president carlos salinas, each responsible for promoting the agreement. the ceremoniously side agreement in their respective capitals on this ever 17th, 1992. they signed the agreement and then it needed to be rather faded white each nation's legislative branch. if you are going to run a program like you have there, you should be responsible enough to correct people who come in with comments that are completely wrong. nafta. did not originate

he simply followed through on an agreement that had already been signed by the three nations including the u.s. on george h.w. bush. he was stuck. he either had to fabricate the agreement and alienate canada and mexico who had agreed with bush to do this thing or he had to carry through on it. get the point that the caller was making -- you should be responsible for correcting people instead of perpetuating incorrect information and allowing these people -- host: the point of the color was making was that president clinton did not need to sign nafta. caller: he was stuck. he either had to abrogate the agreement made by the other countries with bush or he had to carry through on it. to today's through election, 2016.

how much do you think hillary clinton is being blamed for the history that you went through and other callers about how nafta has affected your part of the country? caller: i don't quite understand your question. how is she being blamed? it is part of the mythology of the republicans that nafta is a democratic thing. it is not. it is a globalization thing. the purpose is to maximize the bottom line profit for the corporations and the investors. it is the investor class versus the worker class. it is that simple. you should be making these things clear instead of letting people stay to misconceptions about what is going on. ach is in youngstown, ohio. an independent. last caller-- your

alluded to something that is very important regarding the selection. the partisan bickering we have years --the last eight there is a large divide in this country. you see it especially in this election. regardings comment the investor class versus the working class. clinton did not have to sign it. but one of the big problems with that is that the republicans started it, the democrats finished it. they work towards the same and. not to go to far off the deep end. but i grew up after the collapse of steel. i am from youngstown. we are the rust belt. that webadge or a cross

bear with pride. i worked as a steelworker in two separate factories down there. one of them closed. and part of it was that it cost too much money in this country to make steel. i was making $10 an hour going to college. i was pouring castings in the most meat evil foundry you could think of -- the most medievel foundry you could think of. but the problem is that the casting wassed for not as efficient as what the chinese could do. when i lost my job, i went to work for a small machining plant as a temp. i would see boxes of castings to put railroads together. the quality was garbage. this is part of the problem. as americans, we need to be willing to say -- we do not want

to hemorrhage jobs but we knew to -- our industrial or business leaders need to say that it is worth getting what you pay for. american products have a higher quality to them. the companies have been incentivized to really ship things overseas because it is cheaper, regardless of quality. if you want to bring jobs back, you have to change the mindset -- silver over flash. -- over flesh. host: do you think the quality has changed because of automation? do you think the quality is still as good as ever? caller: the quality is fine and there is something to be said that we need workers that can run those machines. i worked for a bakery that

automated a lot of their stuff. part of the issue is that the bakery is trying to cut costs where they can and they are cutting out labor through matriculation because of the labor agreement. they cannot fully automate everything. but the people coming in to -- it really depends on the industry. but the quality will not suffer if you have the correct people running that thing but overall, if you are going to have the plant in the country automated or not, you have to look at keeping the quality up in the manufacturing plants care. plants here. donald trump was outside of pittsburgh last week and he talked about bringing jobs back

specifically to the aluminum and steel sectors. here is more from his speech. steel trump: like the that built the empire state building -- it will be a american steel that will fortify america's crumbling bridges. american steel. thatll be a american steel sense our skyscrapers soaring into the sky. a beautiful sight. american steel that will rebuild our inner cities. it will be american hands that will make this country and it will be a american energy that powers this country. [applause] trump: it will be american workers who are hired

to do the job. no one else. american workers. [applause] donald trump: we are going to put american steel and aluminum back into the backbone of our country. create massive numbers of jobs, high paying jobs. we have today which everyone agrees are bad jobs. numberscreate massive of good jobs. on trade, on immigration, on foreign policy, we are going to put america first again. column, talking about donald trump's swing states,the rust belt pollock dwyer writes -- donald trump offers magic.

to parts ofe pennsylvania. it is also a distraction from the real facts. even if he could rewrite american trade deals, pennsylvania's industrial economy are not coming back. to make commodity steel almost anywhere other than the united states. if you want to read her column, it is in bloomberg by pollock dwyer. robert is in walcott, indiana. a democrat. thanks for taking my call. i am -- thank you for taking my call. ok, goodbye.

let us go to charles. i have followed politics very closely, both parties. i look at it this way. donald trump immediately when i saw he was going to run. of not beingtitude politically correct. he will jerk the floorboards up. underneath the floorboards is massive termite distraction and that is what really has to happen. the united states is in a like we neverar have before but we have to reengineer what is being produced. anything out send of this country that is not properly packaged for consumer usage all over the world just as they do not send us clothing to

make sure in this country. send,ent the full -- they the completed shirts or appliances. this country has in enormous opportunity to do the same think. i think the trade agreements will be great. mexico, for the first time, has passed to pan in taking our food japan in-- has passed taking our food products. we need to grow with the rest of the economy to produce what the global consumer want. there are 7 billion out there. the inflation that will start to another spurtuse of growth on this planet. that is my take. int: let us go to one need a -- juanita in cincinnati, ohio. caller: it seems like when it

comes to nafta and the trade agreements and different things the president tried to do, the republicans have a selective memory. mitch mcconnell said -- and i live right here in cincinnati. he said -- we are going to make this a one term president. see right now, the republicans have done a pretty good job of doing that. as far as mr. trump holding a wall, my questions to the republicans and mr. trump and there werell -- if no cincinnati, there would be no northern kentucky. we have a bridge about to fall into the ohio river. -- anyone that uses that

-- they need to get their act together. mr. trump will not win because of those policies. host: let us go to jean in detroit, michigan. caller: i feel that the that took their jobs out of the country need to only be able to sell to the people in the other countries. be allowed tot bring their products back into the united states. i have had relatives that have worked in cotton mills and they closed and went overseas. the politics for several years. i remember the debate between clinton andnd bill george bush.

it was george bush the first who drafted nafta. yes, clinton signed it into law when he was elected and i was angry about it but i also know it was a republican policy that did away with glass-steagall and phil gramm pushed for that repeal. in michigan, we have had republican governors, john angler is the one that dismantled our mental health program. our last caller in this segment of the washington journal. up next, we have a sunday political roundtable to discuss the latest developments in campaign 2016. we will break down a new report from the fund for peace ranking the most at risk countries around the world.

first on newsmakers, the top u.s. specialist on the zika virus discusses the push to come up with a vaccine and the impact on the budget funding. , we started a large study.alled the zip we started it in puerto rico and we will continue it in brazil and colombia and other south american countries. we will look at 10,000 pregnant women and follow them to ask and answer some of the questions you are alluding to. what is the rate of infection? is there any difference between a pregnant woman that gets infected with no symptoms versus a pregnant woman that gets infected and has symptoms. ? are there any differences in the consequence to the fetus? regarding the

various trimesters. what are the relative risks you have within those trimesters? and we want to follow the children at birth, three months, six months and a year. we are starting to see that there are babies born who look normal from the standpoint of not being microcephalic. so you might say -- at least we do not have a microcephalic situation but those babies may have abnormalities regarding developmental landmarks. those are the things we will be following with these large study. -- with this large study. >> will you be able to get the funding to do that? >> no, it is not already taken care of. that is one of the things that we had to start because we could

not delay. ithad enough money to start but we do not have enough money to bring this very important trial to fruition. see the entire interview with the doctor today at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. you can hear that also on c-span radio. it is also available online at c-span.org. and now, for a sunday roundtable of all things 2016. we are joined by george and kelly jane. we want to start with the news yesterday about the clinton interview with the fbi. three and a half hours, sitting down with the fbi. is this a light at the end of the tunnel for her? or is this the train coming down the tracks? >> it has been about time.

her to it is good for get it out of the way, especially before the convention. we do not know what was asked or said. no details were really released. time butfair amount of nowhere near what she faced during the and ghazi hearings. it is best for her to get this out of the way so it does not drag on. host: a few details. an interview with msnbc -- clinton was quoted saying that it was something she had offered to do since last august. and that she was pleased to do it. george, expectations of when that conclusion might happen? >> the doj is holding the cards close to the chest. i think this will wrap up soon. i am sure that clinton hopes that.

i think it is likely though not certain that they will not bring any charges or find substantial wrongdoing with her or many of her top aides. we know that donald trump will then say that it is a conspiracy by the obama administration. go,: as far as conspiracies not good optics with the meeting between former president clinton and loretta lynch on her airplane -- on the tarmac. >> what were they thinking. bill clinton is such an experienced politician. did he not realize that people would say -- wait a minute -- his wife is being investigated by her department. what were they thinking? she said they were just talking about golf. if that is true, that is the most stupid reason to have a chat. host: the washington post said

-- even before this appallingly boneheaded incident, there is a risk that a good part of the public would not want to classify hillary clinton over the e-mail incident and now lynch has reinforced the suspicions. >> it was ridiculous. it may be time to re-examine the political brilliance assigned to bill clinton. interactingant with with people but his judgment is not always the greatest. in hillary clinton's interview yesterday, there were eight officials. it is unacceptable that bill thison met with their boss week. it is hard for me to see that anyone thought that was acceptable because it plays into what i mentioned. donald trump no matter what will say that if there are no

charges, it is a whitewash by the administration. you just gave him a silver platter. investigationp comes from what the benghazi committee did into the benghazi attack. what are your thoughts on that report? there were not any big surprises in that report. a lot of republicans were hoping for more smoking guns. it came out with not a lot of surprises. -- the optics, the politics hillary said -- someone asked her about it on the stump. she said people can make judgments but it is time to move on. thatow of one of the men was killed in that attack said -- don't tell me when it is time to move on. she still has the problem where she looks cold. she is not a warm politician

like bill clinton. americans being killed doing their country a service. host: when can people move on? >> i think now. this was the seventh investigation into the benghazi attack finding no wrongdoing on the part of hillary or obama. dollars a 70 million investigation. i think she would have worded it differently if she could but it is understandable that she could -- that she would say we do not need an eighth in -- and aids investigation. 8th investigation. if i were a republican, i would broaden the question. there is a legitimate question of her judgment.

>> from what we understand it was hillary pushing for the move in libya, not obama himself. host: we want to open up the lines to our viewers to join this discussion. as they are dialing in, i want to show you the ad that came out from the national rifle association. bringing up benghazi. >> a lot of people say they will not vote in november. i know some other people that will not be voting this year also. no,ary as president -- thanks. i served in benghazi. my friends did not make it. they did their part, do yours. is this the first of a

series of ads we will expect on this issue? >> it is hard hitting. this is one of the questions she has to face. she wants to move on. didn't show that she engaged in any criminal activity that again, it looks like her people.nt failed these you wish she would be a little more apologetic about it. from maria is calling in westville, new jersey as an independent. i have a comment and a question. clinton alsohough is probably a target of the investigation because of the foundation and his speaking fees but moreover, i wanted to ask about haitian funds. when he is asked what he did --h that money, he has set thosefs up and says

people will be taken care of. and ultimately, everyone in the administration who are not doing their duty. do the people have to march on washington and arrest them? i am talking about accountability. host: any evidence that bill clinton is being investigated? hillary clinton handled her e-mail as secretary of state but there is no doubt she is -- he is hugely invested in the outcome of this investigation. wifell determine if his and bill clinton himself get back into the white house. host: on the clinton foundation and that being a liability for the clintons in terms of the investments that have gone to

that. guest: ith certainly is bernie sanders made some good points about how much money hillary got through speaking fees and we heard about people donating to the clinton fund who then had business before the state department. i do feel that every month or so we're getting a little more coming out. and you sort of have to wonder are the clintons worried is there more to come out. it certainly is a problem when you have foreign governments and foreign people giving money to your foundation as has happened. it's problem. and if she is going to be in the white house a lot more power to distribute. host: summitor, south carolina is next. good morning. caller: i would like to say hello to your guests. to me this is just a continuation of the ken starr model. the one regret the republicans mostly have is not being able to bring in a special prosecutor and what do they spend $40 million with ken

starr? they've been limited this time and it's going to probably set it up for hillary not to be charged with anything. and of course there will be conspiracy. and my other point to your two guests. i really have a problem with credibility with you two because i agree more with you had a guest on, robert costa and he started to oot dress the issues of the object tivity of the news organizations. and are they really interested in the truth or are we just talking about ratings and book deals and people being sponsored ond television shows? i mean, come on, you guys. host: i will let the guests introduce themselves to you. george go ahead. guest: certainly no book deals. but to the caller's broader point i think what we do as a nation is different than the "new york times." we do reporters opinion where

we're transparent about where we're coming from which in some way i think is a little more honest. i think you need both in the whole media environment. but i think what we do as a nation is we do present factual information. we don't shade information but tell you where we're coming from. guest: the same thing reported political commentary. i agree with george we're open about where we come from. the british newspapers are like that too they say where they come from. the reason i like where i work is we have a diverse opinion. yes we're on the right but we publish a lot of stuff against trump and some stuff saying you've got to vote for trump. so i like that we're having that argument amongst ourselves in the pages for our reader to make up their own minds. >> we can have that discussion for about the next 45 minutes as our political roundtable this morning. steven is in virginia. republican. caller: good morning.

i don't know where they're coming from. i listen to the same report that i guess they listen to. and there's so much that hillary clinton should be libel for. the bottom line is at the very least the ambassador asked for security on numerous occasions, over 100. i believe it was 600. but that alone she didn't do her job. she definitely was part of making up the video story. they had two hours where they sat around and divvied this thing up. no one even knows where president obama was. and you're going to sit there and try to tell me that the report came out and cleared her of everything. you're full of it. guest: you might be interested earlier this week we went through that 800-page report with rachel of politico broke down the findings of that

report. but george, i'll let you respond as we talk about the report and its impact. guest: how i read the report and the caller may agree. what i saw was a very creeky bureaucratic infrastructure that was slow to respond to a very fastning crisis on the ground. i think there were mistakes made and hillary clinton if you watch her testimony before the house select committee on benghazi last year she did a lot of self-reflection, she did apologize. she said things could have gone faster. to me this is a question of how do you make the federal bureaucracy whether it's president obama or somebody else how do you make it respond quickly on the ground? it shows a lot of these conservative talking points there was a standdown order. the report said this wasn't true. this was a report done by trey goudy, not exactly a left-wing member of congress. so the idea that he would take an opportunity to whitewash some wrongdoing by clinton seems hard for me to

comprehend. >> on trey goudy and his -- how do you think it will be remembered? >> there's a lot of mixed feelings. some republicans think more should have come out. i don't think it's true at all that the report cleared hillary clinton of any wrong doing. there's really damning email evidence that there was not just what happened beforehand but the coverup afterwards. and what i mean is the idea that we made a mistake this looks bad let's blame this on the video. let's use these talking points. it's pretty clear that state department employees were just basically lying to the american public. i don't think it clears them of that at all. host: and there's some members that put out a companion report too that looked into the aftermath of this as well. guest: exactly. and that's the thing. they were looking very broadly what led to this and what happened afterwards. and again there's mixed feelings amongst republicans about some of this. but as we mentioned earlier we would not even know about hillary's private email server

if it weren't for this investigation. host: dan, independent good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for having me on. i think that benghazi thing seems to be a diversion from the bigger picture here. and the bigger picture here is invading sovereign countries. look what happened. we went in there i guess you can't say we specifically but under our authority the country as invaded and cad affie was killed. this is after he cooperated giving up all his nuclear stuff. he was the head of the african union. he wanted to have the continent of africa only trade oil and gold and silver and was thinking of coming off the

petro dollar. so it seems like we have all these great thing that is are happened when we're going in and invade somewhere because there's all these bonuses to doing it. and we go in and do it and tell stories about how it happened. but the bottom line is we're invading sovereign countries. and just another point and then the same thing happened in ukraine. as one of your guests was saying, that the libya thing kind of emanated from the state department. well, ukraine did, too. having victoria newland state who they were going to put in as the president after the coup happened. hings are getting out of hand. host: do you want to pick up on ukraine? guest: well, that's that's sort of a big issue and it's not just -- i don't think you can say that ukraine is just america's fault.

guest: it's interesting that hasn't been much of an issue especially since donald trump has spoken admiringly hasn't come up at all. although they'll talk about invading sovereign countries. putin went in and anesmed crimea host: i think it's possible we'll hear more. one of the things hillary clinton would like to do is push this on to the territory of foreign policy because it's somewhere -- not that i think donald trump has any strong suits particularly but at least he's a little bit stronger and is talking about the economy and how people have been screwed by trade deals and thing likes that. he is completely uncomfortable talking about foreign policy. so if she pushes it to that area down the stretch august, september, i wouldn't be surprised. host: benghazi making

headlines. and the interview yesterday. this coming week and until congress leaves on july 4th recess guns expected to be back in the headlines. paul ryan scheduling a vote this coming week in the wake of that sit-in on the house floor in the chamber of the house. surprising to you that paul ryan is giving a vote to some sort of gun legislation? guest: not really. he's sort of trying to be a bit more of a -- not maybe a compromise guy but working with the other side. he showed that even before he had the speaker's job. i remember when he talked to obama and was trying to give him some advice on what a health care reform that republicans might sign on. obama ignored that and obamacare was a straight party line vote. he's a very wonky guy. he's interested in the issues and is someone that wants to make congress work. he's always wanted to. host: we'll see how this plays out. but is it a win for democrats that they're getting a vote on

the gun issue? guest: they don't like this bill but if you want evidence that the sit-in was politically beneficial i think this vote is evidence of that. a lot of our reporting and talking to pro gun control groups they find that gun control can be a very powerful issue in elections particularly with women, suburban women who have children. they actually are moving toward being -- deciding their votes on gun control. these studies come out and say 90% of people support universal background checks. so why isn't it then that the republicans who stood in the way of those checks don't get blown out? because although 90% of people back them they don't make it a primary voting issue. they don't say i'm not going to vote for this person because they went against it. a lot of what these pro gun control groups are trying to do is make it a single issue voting block for at least some people. i think it's possible that republicans are aware of this and see the danger in it and so thought let's schedule a vote

and try to neutralize this issue. host: joe, new orleans. caller: good morning. my concern this morning is that effective the subject of the topic of this segment was to be about the campaign for 2016. am i correct on that? host: go ahead. caller: then why is it that you as the host began the show with a negative concept or negative story about hillary clinton? no one yet has mentioned and ing about donald trump the inaccuracy that he spews all of the time. it's like your show other shows are just -- and the press just give him a free ride. >> the news yesterday on

hillary clinton's sitdown with the f.b.i. certainly making headlines around the country because that's the news that happened yesterday. and we're talking about it. but george zornic, if you want to take on donald trump and some of the recent controversies that he has brought up in some of his statements and tweets. guest: the big controversy he got into yesterday as he tweeted out and -- a picture of hillary clinton that had a star of david on it and people interpreted that as anti-semetic either intentional or incredibly bone-headed but it is strange the broader phenomenon the caller is talking about the news media gives trump a free ride. first of all, define what you're talking about but in any case i've seen volumes and volumes of fact checks on trump and critical articles. it's just hard because none of this or a certain segment of the population none of it seems to stick. it's out there but i'm not sure -- if a big investigation comes out and -- what trump is going

to drop out of the race, one piece of really good reporting that i would recommend to the caller if she is looking for it is a big story the "new york times" did about two three weeks ago about how trump ran atlantic city and how properties ended up in bankruptcy how he was sort of taking profits off the top and allowing these places to fail. it's something you will see when hillary clinton goes to atlantic city and gives a speech there. normally presidential candidates don't show up in new jersey to highlight what his record was in that city. host: to show the viewers that tweet. here ts original tweet that donald trump set out -- sent out yesterday in that red star that's on that it says most corrupt candidate ever. and then that was change add few hours later sent out in a different form by donald trump and here is the other form. you can see the difference between that is now a circle that says most corrupt candidate ever.

guest: talking about whether it was anti-semetic or not. it wasn't just the star of david. but it was over top a pile of money just -- and it's funny. i think donald trump is one of those guys who thinks being in love with himself and never having to say it's sorry but he deleted that tweet. he sent the first one and changed it. he never deletes a tweet. he is who he is. so the fact he did so is kind of surprising. and sort of telling maybe some of these -- advisers trying to help him not be so crazy. >> let's go down to memphis, tennessee. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to make a couple of comments. bill and hillary are two slimey lawyers and seem to think they can talk their way out of anything. as far as hillary, and her income inequality, i would like

to know where the line forms where i could give a speech and pick up a quart tore half a million dollars. secondly, i don't know of any politician on this planet that -- can hold a candle to the nra and people and their love of their self-defense weapons. finally, i got one thing to say to hillary. hillary, it's the economy, stupid. thank you. good-bye from memphis. host: one of the things he mentions there hillary clinton's speeches to wall street waiting to see if transcripts of that come out before this election cycle. do you think that's something that is going to be more digging on? guest: if they haven't come out now i'm not sure when they will. a lot of it, earning a lot of money is not mutually exclusive with wanting higher tax rates or tougher regulations on corporations but i do think it was a questionable judgment call on her behalf. was it worth the money in an

election where you're clearly going to be running on the economy only a few years after a big financial crash. do you want to go touring wall street banks and taking money not for your campaign or super pac which unfortunately is common practice but for yourself. do you want to take over $1 million from some of the worst players in the financial sector to me i mean i've never turned down a million dollars but it seems like i would not take that deal because the optics were going to be so bad. i don't think she totally anticipated the rapid rise of bernie sanders. so maybe she thought it wouldn't be a big issue but clearly it was an error in issue. guest: she said that when she and bill left the white house they were dead broke. she had to take that money. i think you're right it does play to her judgment and to i think people are worried the clintons are very greedy. they seem like they're out looking for money. the bernie sanders thing, i think bernie sanders this unexpected rise it's been bad for hillary and bad for the country, too.

because he has pushed hillary to the left in ways i don't think she would have gone otherwise and i think she feels she has to stay that way for the general election because she doesn't want to lose those supporters and have them staying at home or some might even vote for trump. so i think bernie has had a big effect on this election even if he certainly is not going to become a candidate host: is an endorsement necessary? and if so when before this t convention coming up? guest: i don't think it's strictly speaking necessary because i think she will very likely to beat trump no matter what happens. but it's very, very useful. the polls are still showing that there are a significant number -- not a huge number but a significant number of bernie sanders supporters who haven't come around to clinton yet and may not have a particularly strong negative opinion about her but as long as bernie sanders is running and they love this guy. i think the clinton campaign would like for sanders to give an endorsement and i expect he will for the convention. i think he's waiting for some of these issues to be resolved.

in particular the tpp. but if the clinton campaign can give him a concession on that drade deal -- it would only have to be symbolic. a lot of this is fighting over a platform good organizing tooling but it's not binding to any legislative outcome. so i think they'll figure out where he gets his language. he will endorse her. i fully expect to see him on the stage in philadelphia. host: about 25 minutes left. you have questions as we talk about campaign 2016. diana in naples florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm listening there's so many things i would like to say. the first thing is that eisenhower said do not ever go into the middle east. and when they talk about benghazi and all this over where we've been invading sovereign nations, this is all come about because we are in the middle east.

i loved -- i've been calling into the "washington journal" for almost 30 years. so i've noticed if you are a democrat you don't get to seem to talk as long as this fellow who called hillary slimey. because i remember i stopped watching until this morning i this ned in and i heard fellow start talking about nation i think it's a great issue on paper and i think bill crystal's -- what the heck is it. the paper. host: talking about the weekly standard? caller: i wish you would let somebody talk for a minute or so. such a great difference tries to point out the lies. maybe the weekly standard change a little bit i don't know from the last couple comments she made sound a little different which was good but this hillary slamming is

disgusting. and this is one thing we've got -- republicans do. they always twist everything. and this is what is so irk some if they just comb out and be truthful. i want to comment about the st time i called icea was on there. all i said about him was i was disgusted with the way he was talking about the democrats and what he has been doing on the committee. and they cut me off. and i've been calling for 30 years and i heard this man talk for i don't know i didn't count the seconds or the minutes but calling hillary all kinds of names, this is what's happened with the -- these people should have some respect. host: got your point. hope you keep watching and calling in. anthony in peerk line for republicans. -- puerto rico. caller: good morning. the lady that just called about respect. hillary clinton needs to respect us.

she's talking about respect. she needs to give us respect. i want to ask the gentleman he just made a comment about he thinks hillary is going to win the election. i want to ask him why does he say that? host: all right. caller: the polls we've seen have really been sort of astonishing that she is pushing into the high single digits even double digits in some swing states. it seems that she is poised to sweep pretty much every state that's in contention this fall. by that i mean swing states, ohio, florida, she's even pushing into making states like georgia and arizona at least contested where the republicans are going to have to go there and spend money. the statistical modeling that 538 does puts it at 80% chance. i don't think that's guaranteed. trump would still win two of them. i think democrats should ignore

every poll and pretend donald trump is ahead. because a lot can happen. and what we've seen this year is that external events can change this. fid to bet on it today if the election were tomorrow i think she would win. host: i want to give our viewers some of the numbers out there. this is one of the most recent polls. some of the swing states rust belt states we talked about. ohio, 41%. hillary clinton donald trump. in pennsylvania hillary clinton ahead 45%. michigan hillary clinton 48%. florida hillary clinton had 49%. north carolina 48%. just a few of the numbers out there. there's polling every day and the polling changes every day.

guest: i think one of the issues is that donald trump ale nates big groups of people. a "washington post" poll came out said he had 77% unfavorability rating with women. there's always a bit of a gender gap between the parties but that is unprecedented. here's a guy who really manages to make a large groups of people angry and that's going to show up in every state. when you're making that many people angry and you're offending that many people you've got a lot of work to do and i think he is going to have to get a lot done if he wants to win this election. i think right now it's hillary's to lose. but again anything can happen. it's still months away. host: talk about those competing swings through rust belt states last week and the messages they were trying to push. guest: one of the callers brought up trade and talked a bit about tpp. those last week's have been interesting because you had president obama visiting canada with the three amigos group

there. he blasted trump on trade. very great arguments. i thought wow obama is finally read adam smith and sort of extolling the virtues of free trade. then the chamber of commerce came out against trump which surprised people. they're both attacking trump. but what was funny was obama didn't say anything about hill whicho obvious was for tpp but now she's against it. d that's brnie sanders influence. so obama worked so hard for it was just combite interesting seeing obama attack trump for something which hillary is now on his side about. guest: he managed to unite the affle cio and chamber of commerce. you don't see those two groups marching in step on trade. aflcio opposes these but don't

find trump credible and they think his solution are incoherent. slapping high tariffs on countries. but i think trump actually has unlocked a very powerful formula for republicans, which is to go hard on immigration which we know very strongly motivates republican voters. ease off the sort of cut social security, cut taxes anti-regulation. talk about this negative impact of trade deals on the working class. say you'll protect social security. that is actually a very powerful formula for republicans. it's just the third part of his formula is as kelly said offending just about every group under the sun and those negatives wash away whatever gains he is making. but he is on to something there and i wonder if next time around a more composed and professional politician will realize what trump has done and talk about those things while not being openly racive. host: at the confronse last

week president obama said politicians on both sides of the aisle have oversold the job losses from trade deals perhaps getting to that point. but i know you've written that even some of hillary clinton's aides don't believe she's as strongly opposed to tpp as she said she is. guest: she claims that she is but trump has a good point is will she say for sure that she -- as is she will block this deal? because one out that she may have is to have congress pass sort of a complementry bill that says we believe the trade deal should do this and this was what was done to get nafta passed. congress wasn't happy and they passed a lot of complementry legislation that said we would like the trade deal to do xy and z. an none of those happened because it doesn't bind the trade deal but it is window dressing to get it through. i don't particularly believe that hillary clinton has made a true 180 on it. i think it is possible for

politicians and politicians to change their mind. but look at something like mass incarceration where she has done a 180 from the clinton policy. but she has given white papers about how the justice system should work. she mentioned it voluntarily. i'm willing to believe the shift. on tpp she said literally nothing about it until the very week that bernie sanders caught her in the polls she said i oppose tpp. she never brings it up. she doesn't go to the events highlighting why they're bad. she rarely mentions it. but i think there is fair reason to say is she gin lynnly against it? >> well, first the only time i can remember afl-cio agreeing on something is keystone pipeline. they both supported it. which of course obama vetoed it. but one of the things that we were talking about nafta and obama was visiting canada, it's funny because people didn't want a bush-clinton race it's

going to feel too rhett rofment isn't it the 90s all over again. we have a clinton running. to me one of the biggest thing that is happened last week that we haven't mentioned yet is that trump said that he would get rid of nafta. now to me this is incredible. to me there's no question that nafta has been good for the united states, it's been good for north america. of course we remember there was some protest candidates in the 90s who spoke against it. and it is -- trade if you say the rust belt state that it's a mixed thing there. because sometimes people don't -- they look at the very -- what happens immediately when a trade passes and they don't look at the long term and everything else going along with it. but saying you're going to get rid of a decades old free trade agreement is pretty big news. >> about 15 minutes left to talk about it if you want to continue talking about it. aking your calls and comments.

curtis in richmond, virginia. go ahead. caller: good morning. interesting conversation. i'm a proud american black man. i'm a 48 year united states marine vietnam era. i really have just two short comments. hillary clinton. wow. i mean, she's really off the hook. 8,000 men are rotting in their graves almost 8,000 men and women from this illegal war this crazy war. i would like her to call or chat with each one of their relatives about them when they want to move on about that war what is happening right now. and libya and throughout the middle east and the impact. donald trump is an over the top racist. but hillary clinton and bill clinton in my opinion are racist. now kelly was talking about the

g pact of nafta. nafta has decimate it had black community with manufacturing jobs throughout all the city in the united states. and what happened when those manufacturing jobs left the media jumped and took us from being law abiding hard working citizens black citizens to cops and 48 hours to where we're the worst thing that has happened o america. now fill that with economic programs schools what not they filled it with the industrial complex. that wasn't by action that was by design. since that happened the clintons have invested and industrial from the complex. host: i'm going to let george jump in. guest: i think i disagree a little on kelly with trade. close tore where the caller is.

there's no debate in the economic data that it did produce some g.d.p. gains but i think the deals were never sold honestly. because if you were to honestly sell a trade deal you would say there are particular communities that are going to get devastated by this deal. and the trade-off is we're going to have slightly higher g.d.p. and consumer prices will come down. that's not a very politically potent case to make particularly for the people who are going to get devastated. so i think the visceral reaction that people have is manifesting itself in the trump and bernie sanders campaign is a reaction to that. not only do they see their job loss but they don't think they've been told the truth. the real problem i think and i think a lot of people on the left feel that the safety net just isn't strong enough to do these things. you may agree that the trade deal still has to be done certain sectors will lose their job. but if the country had a very strong unemployment insurance program, which it doesn't, if you had guaranteed health care,

if the displaced worker was real and strong, the taa that congress passed is ineffective. if you could figure out a way to take care of the workers displaced by trade deals and honest about those costs i think you could move somewhere. but i think people as long as they feel they're not being told the truth and as long as there's no sort of safety net to catch the people who are getting displaced by these deals it is going to be politically a problem. host: line for republicans judy good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is on benghazi. i watched the program the other were re the three men there and they told very distinctly some of the thing that is happened. and the horrible thing that is they went through. and to be told three or four times to stand down and basically president obama and

mrs. clinton knew about this. and the sad part of it is how do you live with your conscience knowing and looking at those people that lost their loved ones how do you look at them and say this is right? this is not? and i'm so sad to say that our country has forgot who their creator is. and that's god. and when you forget who god is, then you have lost everything. because i'm 77 years old and i've been through a lot. and i just pray that we come back to god. it's time that we stop all this nonsense and become human beings again. host: the frustration and emotion from that caller. guest: that's what we're seeing a lot of this year on both sides. a lot of frustration. talking about again i said earlier like hillary it was a

bad move to say let's move on and sort of not give a nod to the families. but that feeling is shared by not just republicans and democrats, independents feels like the politicians in washington are kind of out for themselves. they don't care about us. and i think that's why this year it's such a strange year in terms of unexpected candacies doing much better than expected. people are angry and looking for people who are not career politicians. people who look like outsiders to step in and make a change. whether that's a good change is another question. host: brings up michael's question from twitter. how big is the anti-establishment group among american voters? michael says no one is really looking at them. do you agree? guest: i think people are looking. i would recommend a book by my former colleague called twilight of the elites. he was describing there has been such failures of leadership in the business sector. you can look back to enron and the arthur anderson scandal and the 2000 and government and

almost every sector i think people are deeply losing faith in the elites who run the country who run business. they don't think that the is elevating the best and brightest. and this loss of faith in the ystem is reverberating in ways that are surprising. and a lot of anger when you try to map it out say that's not logical to believe this and this and how can you switch from bernie sanders to donald trump. but it's frustration and desire to even shake up the system to protest to say this person is kind of not what i expected. and that's exactly why i'm going to vote for him or her. host: dave, good morning. caller: thanks for take mig call. and that's a good segue into my question. one of them is where's trump going to be with disclosing his tax returns? and with that said, as a voter and looking at those others

that have disclosed their tax returns, to me it's a good bit of information for a voter to understand whether or not a candidate is representing themselves. and in actuality or not. so i think it would be best for trump like the rest of them to go ahead and disclose basically the types of ways he represents his wealth by disclosing his tax return. thank you. guest: it really is. i mean, in recent years it's sort of unprecedented for a president not to release his tax returns. and he claimed that he can't because they're being audited. that's not true because he can release the information the i.r.s. his lawyers has said you can release. so what is he hiding? and i agree with george what he was saying with people sort of

lost faith in the eleast. it amazes me that people think that the solution some people think is we need a new set of elites. everybody's humiditien everybody makes mistakes. so to think some politician is going to come around and be perfect i think is wrong and that's why i'm sort of for giving people the ability to make decisions for themselves. to make government small. to put business decisions back in the hands of people rather than those in washington who are out of touch. host: back to pennsylvania. mike go ahead. caller: thanks. i've been wondering for a long time why the ambassador to libya's behavior is glossed over what he would be doing out running around in the middle of the night in benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11. i wish your guests could discuss that a little bit. that's it. thank you. host: i don't know how much you've looked into from the report and the findings.

guest: it was a very dangerous situation that he put himself in although i think in general we sort of want our frontline personnel to be where the action is. i think that did create a problem. there is this issue of a stand down order which i think the reports show didn't come from the top. that there was hesitation about when do we go in and part of it was the question do you go running in to an area that you don't know the street map of where there's a lot of radical lmentsd that are armed? do you go running in and start shooting? you know who the ally is do you know who your people are? they're wearing uniforms. it was a very hectic chaotic situation and very difficult to respond to in real time. >> host: democratic officials making the point once again that there were a lot of people who were saved and got out of benghazi. and of course though there were four who did not. guest: exactly. they did save some lives. what complicated it is there

was a c.i.a. complex next door that even some top military were not aware that it was there or they didn't know -- if they did they didn't know what is this building like. what is the floor plan of this building how do we get in there. so i can't imagine, if you read this report the section on sort of the minute by minute of what happened that night, it's a horrible situation to be in. host: susan in pennsylvania. aller: i wanted to say yesterday you hear all this talk about ben zpwazzi. yesterday i watched 13 hours for the first time. i want to say i cried like a baby. i cried like a baby. because all those boys wanted to do was get the hell out of

there. our leaders failed them. they're incompetent. the thing is, war is bad. i'm sure what was shown is only a little -- other people died, too. could shows you what happen. and if we don't get the proper people in as leaders for our country, if isis happens to art coming in on our soil, what are we going to do? host: this brings up a good question. the impact of this movie and how the benghazi attack and response was depictd in this movie. and how that's impacting the public policy debate and the political debate in an election year. guest: it's interesting.

13 hours she mentioned was the movie that sort of dramatized what happened in benghazi and it's rare you find hollywood doing a movie so relatively quickly after an event happened. and they got quite a lot of access apparently and it's different when you're reading a dry report and then seeing a movie that sort of shows you exactly what happened. and you sort of wish that for every big issue hollywood would care and make a movie because of course americans watch movies. it's a huge business. and that's definitely the way to get people to care about an issue. host: do you think people trust hollywood in their ability to depict what happened so soon after an event? guest: that's a good question too. remember the movie about osama bin laden some people said yes that's what happened. others said that was hollywood. they played with the facts. which of course they always do. so yes you sort of hope that hollywood would bring an awareness but then you hope

people would dig deeper about how many people have access to what really happened. not so many. host: there's an 800 new report that came out if people want to dig through that. we did it on the "washington journal" over the day after that report. you can watch that on c-span.org. george i'll let you jump in as well. guest: i would go back to farnehiggete 9/11 in 2004 which i think had a substantially underrated impact on the election. i think there was data that showed it did move some voters some counties in pennsylvania. so that there is a history of these things. that movie sort of, although it wasn't enough to help john kerry it sort of shook the foundation of the bush administration's case for war. and though it didn't affect the election in the years that followed you saw rapid different public opinion. was it all because of the movie? no but i think it's an interesting moment in history. host: let's see if we can fit in timothy.

go ahead. is about the ment -- not about the people in the party or the parties. it's about the loyalty of those who are going to vote for the candidates. and as you know, the new voters are millenials for bernie and the fdr dems. now, they really have no loyalty to the democratic party. and as you know, there's other alternatives like the green party and the libertarian party. and you don't talk about that. but the other issue is that there's party unity. and if you want to unite the democratic party, then you should bring out bernie because it's easier for the left to move to the left rather than to bring to the left to move it to the right to her side. and it's -- if you want to

unite the republican party, then you should put hillary at the top of the ticket. host: i promise you we do try to talk as much as we can about third party candidates. we had libertarian candidate for president on this program just a few weeks back. but on party loyalty and the rise of third parties. guest: i have to say i like hearing talk about party loyalty. unite the party. how long has bernie sanders been a democrat? how long has donald trump been a republican? it's a very strange year in which we're talking about uniting the party around people who just recently joined it. yes bernie sanders caucused with the democrats for a while but he has run as an independent most of his career and he as recent democrat. so it's amazing how much impact he's having on the party and its platform. host: george. guest: i think a lot of that has to do with millenials. there was a study that came out that said the first time a majority of millenials have lost faith in capitalism which

is an earth-shaking moment going forward as the baby boom generation gets smaller and smaller these are the folks who will take over the party. they are very liberal. they don't have faith in capitalism but don't consider themselves democrats. that sounds like a candidate that i know. host: george, on twitter if you want to follow him. kelly, thank you both for joining us once again. we'll be right back. when we do come back we'll be joined by jj mess anywhere the executive director of the funds for peace. talking about a new report ranking the most at-risk and stable countries around the world. but first all weekend long we've been exploring the history and literary life of proveo, utah as our c-span cities tour continues on book tv and american history tv. coming up we'll be featuring our history programming on c-span-3 american history tv

including an interview with history professor jay spencer fluman who shares a story of the first mormen settlers in he area in 1849. >> i've been collecting rare books for the past 30 years. the past 10-15 years book storse have sold books have suffered with the advent of e books and everything going digital. but what i found is the interest in rare books has increased. i enjoy early american history. this is really one of the most important books printed in america pre-1800. it's an original copy of thomas payne's common sense which was printed in philadelphia. the printer was robert bell on third street in philadelphia. if you go there today you will see a brass plaque saying here is where common sense was printed january 9, 1776. now it was a little like a

pamphlet. it's sewn together. it's quite rare. it was printed three times in january of 1776 and it has an interesting story because thomas payne went to robert bell one of the -- wanted to have it printed and he want it had proceeds to buy the soldiers mittens. well, after it went through three printings they had a falling out and so thomas payne allowed anybody to print it. he lowered the price and said anybody can print it. that's one reason that book is so well known and printed and to this day has the designation of having the highest saturation of any book printed n america. host: make sure to tune in this weekend as we travel to profeo, utah and to watch video from there and all the cities we

sit in our cities tour go to c-span.org/cities tour. we're joined now on the washington journal" by jj mess nrerrr fund for peace. talk about the fragile state index. before we get to the rankings for those unfamiliar with this project what is it and why do you do it? guest: first of all, what is it? about 12 years ago we took a frame work that we had and turned it into an assessment of the world where we look at 178 countries every year based on 12 primary indicators social economic and political that allow us to determine the level of fragility in every country. because we've been doing it for 12 years we're able to map trends of whether the world is becoming more stable or more fragile. more broadly why we do it is we believe it really puts metrics to something that is

fundamentally very difficult to measure. we can look at a country and we can say that looks like a fragile state. but being able to demonstrate numeically that it actually is, is very meaningful and very helpful to policy makers also. a host: give people a sense of indicators hand do they all weigh equally in the decision as they add up to what makes a fragile state and what state is more stable? guest: yes. all our indicators are weighted equally but obviously different. it's everything from demographic preshrs which looks at the pressures on society due to population or naltral disasters. or issues like steat legitimacy which is the accountability and the confidence that the population has in its own government. we also fact nr other things like external interventions basically the world's effect on a country.

and so with those 12 primary indicators we also have 130 subindicators under those which we're fairly confident captures most of the different areas of fragility the country might experience. >> so in adding those up the most fragile country in the planet is somalia not in the news as say syria or afghanistan or yemen. why is somalia the most fragile country in the world? guest: i think first of all you raise a really good point, which is somalia is not always in the news. and i think that is one of the real values of this index to really be able to put metrics on this issue of what fragility really is. because otherwise there is a risk that policy is going to be driven by the headlines. what country perhaps is being covered the most that's at the top of the hour. but being able to put metrics on these kinds of measurements we're able to much more dispassionately understand

where fragility actually exists. in the case of somalia, somalia is no stranger to the top end of the fragile state index. it was a stretch of five years where somalia was continually at the top of the index. and i think that the reasons are many but they're also fairly clear. that you have a country that is without a stable strong government that is able to rule the entire country and it is beset by a lot of internal instability whether it be terrorism or even offshore piracy which admittedly is improving due to the various forces that are dealing with it. nevertheless, somalia is still in a very perilous position. and i think that the 2016 fragile state index bears that out. host: that index is the topic of our conversation for the next 40 minutes here on the "washington journal." if you want to call in, if you the comments or questions,

fund for peace has run the index for the past 12 years, the numbers are on your screen. we have been showing you a map of the globe of the different countries as they are ranked. so the darker red on that map the more fragile the state. the only country that's in the top 40 of fragile states on this map that's in the western hemisphere is haiti. can you talk through what the index found when it came to haiti? guest: well, haiti of course is facing incredible instability to begin with let's not forget that it faced a calamitous earthquake back in 2010 that really undermined the country and its future.

and it is still really in a recovery mode from that. but what compounded the situation for haiti is that when the earthquake hit it was already an incredibly fragile country. we've seen dictatorial governments in the past. leaders like papa and baby doc who are infamous for their use of violence to maintain their rule. and then now we see continued instability as they've now had one presidential election pass by without a clear result. now we're due for another and we're seeing rising election related violence in the country related the that, too. so given that, even though the index focuses on the previous year i think that the current instability in haiti is likely to see their score perhaps worsen even more next year.

host: you can see all the scores and countries listed in this index at fund for peace.org if you want to read along with us as we go through the segment. you say on the website when you talk about the scores that we encourage others to utilize the index to develop ideas for developing greater stability worldwide. what are some ways that that has been done in the 12 years that you've done this? guest: i think perhaps the favorite case study for us is frequently when we publish the fragile states index we will have all manner of government sending their very angry ambassadors to it not too pleased in the manner in which we assess their country. but one i recall very fondly is a letter from the kenyan government who did not necessarily agree with every single finding we had. but they did recognize that some of what we said had

validity. and they actually opened the door for us to engage in a multistakeholder dialogue in kenya with the kenyan government and kenyan civil society. to really openly discuss some of the underlying political and social issues of the fragile states index was demonstrating. and that sort of engagement, that sort of search for solutions is really what this index is all about. and i think that the kenyan example is not unique to kenya. i think that there are many countries in the world that could benefit from that sort of open discourse on what makes our country fragile, how can we look for solutions to make life better. host: happy to have an open discourse for the next 35 minutes as we talk about the fragile states index. the numbers are on your screen.

bill, you're on. caller: thank you for being on c-span. you're a rare refreshing. usually we get a bunch of people like your past two guests that keep complaining about politics and then you have an index that shows countries are really doing bad in the world. how is the haiti that got on -- that got all that money after the hurricane are going to possibly do lower in their economic standing? do they have to pay back france or something? i don't know. host: post earth quake recovery efforts in haiti. guest: i think first of all the caller is right in noting that the enormous flows of aid and development money have gone into haiti over the years.

partly for -- this is for development but also for disaster relief. and what i would say with a country like haiti is that you can put enormous amounts of money and resources into a fragile country. but it is wrong to expect results overnight. the reality of state fragility is that it's possible for a state to fall very quickly. but the rebuilding process can take decades. and one example that i would give is that of sierra leon. now, the example is undermined a little bit by the ebola crisis a couple of years ago. but prior to the ebola crisis if you look at sierra leone, a country that was in the midst of a brutal civil war in the 1990s, i'm sure some of your viewers will recall that civil war and the fact that you had civilians attacked losing their limbs as part of a very brutal civil war, and then fast

forward another decade and the beginning of our fragile states index sierra leone was ranked in the top ten most fragile countries in the world. fast forward another decade and you can see in our rankings that sierra leone is well on the way to recovery. it's still a fragile state but i think that sierra leone demonstrates that it is possible to improve. that you can go from civil war to recovery. it takes a long time u but it is possible. and for a country like haiti i think the road would be equally a very long one. host: the most sustainable countries. finland norway new zealand denmark switzerland australia sweden. we haven't gotten to the united states yet. the u.s. ranked 159th out of the 177 countries on the index with its worst score coming in a group grievances and uneven economic development. explain why.

host: well, so i think that the example of the united states score on group grievance increasing is something that we should all be very worried about and i'll tell you why in a moment. the indicator scores for the united states for group grieveance and also for security apparatus have been incomb proving so that would suggest those other nine indicators that actuary the united states is on the improved. but one caveat with the group grievance score is we -- when the brexit referendum occurred we went back and attempted to see if we could find any trends for the united kingdom and let's not forget that the referendum was fraught with plenty of anti-immigration rhetoric. there was accusations of racism and bigotry among the

campaigners. and so it was really said to be highlighting issues within society. real squizzms between groups. and that's what the group grievance indcailtor measures. we found that over the last five years the group zpwreeveance indicator had pretty much been the what we also found was that it worsened at the same rate as it has in the united states. i think we see this born out by increasingly divisive political rhetoric. in that sense, all of us need to be aware that that sort of rhetoric has consequences and i think we are seeing that in the united kingdom at the moment. if we are to look at the data and use it to inform our decision-making, i think it could be somewhat of a warning for us. fragile statesxt

index, do you expect the united kingdom numbers to kick up and the score to drop? guest: it is difficult to predict, but i expect based on events in the united kingdom the brakes it referendum and continuing worsening divisions in society will do no favors for the united kingdom score next year. host: susan, line for democrats, you are on with 2016 fragile states index j.j. messner. caller: when you say fund for peace, who funds you? do you take in, when you consider a fragile state, strategic resources and locations that might cause nations like the united states and global forces to invade them? how do you define peace? peace at any cost? when you put a

in, is that something you consider? and climate change? host: a good question. guest: let's see if i can remember them all. who funds the funds for peace? we are nearly six-year-old organization. a foundation and now are a ngo. it comes from various governments, we also take philanthropic foundations, individuals, multilateral organizations, and also corporations. the largest donors tend to be governments and organizations. caller touches on a very

interesting point. the country's location does matter. perhaps not necessarily strategic, as the caller suggested, but in terms of regional effect. state fragility is something that is cross-border. if you look at the more stable countries on the 2016 fragile states index, some of them are islands, new zealand and australia for example. some are in regions that are stable, western europe, north america. the flipside is to look at countries otherwise undermined by their location. an example we saw this year, in reallyf location undermining a countries form is cameron.

it has seen the score force in significantly this year. it is the second most worsened country in 2016. the reason why cameroon has worsened is not of its own doing. is whyximity to nigeria it is effect. the reason is enormous refugee flows from nigeria. also cross border terrorism by bo boko haram into nigerian territory. it demonstrates that a countries location can undermine its performance and undermine the score considerably, even when it is not the country's own doing. host: if a desperate rules for a despon iron-- if

t was with an iron fist? guest: it is not necessarily a we areion of peace, looking at a definition of fragility. in some respects, peace can be the opposite of fragility, but not always. some countries can be stable through undergroun undemocratic means. it would undermine a country's performance if you consider countries that might have a and artan leader riddle are at relative peace. i would differentiate between peace and fragility in that sense. host: bill, florida. caller: i don't think much can be accomplished without the -- without some sort of arms

control and some sort of peaceful rationale in these third world countries and the dictators you were just speaking about. not much can be accomplished without arms control. nato has to straighten out contact, with the way it is encroaching on russia and the get -- i get a sense that we are not being told the truth about what is going on in that particular area. host: you are talking about russia and ukraine? caller: ukraine and russia being our allies and russia being our foe.

where is the news media on this? where is the clarity? , if you wantssner to talk about the tensions in ukraine and nato and russia? guest: yes. last year, ukraine was one of our most worsened countries year on year from those previous years indexes. but as was russia. what we were detecting in our data is that not only was russia's belligerence having an effect on those neighboring countries, but also we were detecting russia was becoming increasingly fragile itself and i think we have been able to see the effects of falling oil budget.n russia's also, the real closing of society space -- civil society space.

in russia. slowing seen a down of belligerence, but there is intense concern in some of the border countries like estonia and lithuania that concern and feeling that's perhaps we could be next. nevertheless, it does demonstrate the transnational nature of state fragility. one countries behavior, be it russia, is having direct effects on neighboring countries such as ukraine. russia ranksindex, , in comparison with ukraine at 85th. connecticut.y, caller: good morning. i just heard a phone call about

haiti. one of the things that i have been looking into and others have been is the administration took in money for haiti and not a penny of it went to haiti. on ank it is a travesty epic scale. the something the fund for peace has looked at? know: i would not claim to the ins and outs of those funding streams into haiti. programmaticsome work in haiti but our focus has been much more narrow. the situation there is quite difficult. it is going to take an enormous amount of support international

ly to get haiti out of its current situation. we also have to recognize local solutions in any sort of context are vitally important. locallity for leaders to bring their countries to stability, a lot easier said ,han done, but nonetheless haiti is like any other country that finds itself in that sort of precarious position. it relies on international support among local solutions, and it is really a long-term gain. host: thomas, line for republicans. thomas, go ahead. caller: the morning. earlier you spoke about the grievance and to begin full of it. i would like you to elaborate on the grievance.

this being independence day weekend, if there was a degree in the early 1970's, there would -- early 1770's, there are be no united states in america. guest: grievances divisions within society. host: one of the 12 indicators that can ship is to country score on the fragile state index. guest: it looks at sectarian divisions. in a pluralistic society, there are going to be many different groups. what it looks at his division tween those groups. the idea of having grievances it is a country, democracy. but what we're looking at is social division. in many ways, grievance is a

social group indicator. , religious,visions ethnic, sectarian, however the divisions are defined, where the divisions are being worsened or exploited or political gains, group grievance indicator is picking up on. it gets to the core of what we are seeing more and more of, particularly in western european countries, identity-based politics. xityou look at the bre referendum, there was a nationalistic bent to the campaigning by the leaf campaign in that referendum. i think that gets back to his identity-based politics, this nationalistic politics and it really is worsening many of those existing group divisions

which left alone, we can and gety managed below along. when they are exploited and groups are set against each other, that is where the group grievance indicator except. -- picks up. caller: good morning. i don't know, this might be superficial, i am looking at this information in regards to immigration into our country. was i found striking was right off the bat you mentioned somalia and haiti. one of the things that became apparent to me recently, we have been immigrating, allowing immigrants to come into the country from some of these very countries that you are mentioning. this might seem politically incorrect, but it seems to me that what is happening is now, comparing to our past, 80 years

ago, 100 years ago, a lot of immigrants came into the country from, let's say, europe, these notle, once again this is politically correct, but i believe it is accurate, the quality of these people, there it here and to moral codes, when immigrants came in from europe, a possessed good ethics and they had a professional quality to them that made them useful and benefited the united states. host: you are believing because they came from more stable states? caller: not necessarily fragile state, the point of it is, having to do with immigration the people we used to promote or allowed to come into the country

added to the strength of the united states. they brought with them professions, things that made us stronger. host: you do not think that happens anymore? caller: now it is the complete opposite. guest: first of all, as an immigrant myself, i would actually disagree with those comments. i've think it is easy to look back at different ways of immigration with rose-colored glasses. consider, 50 years ago, 70 years ago, there was discrimination against irish and italian immigrants. today, we consider those countries to be western european. the consider them to be advanced countries, let's not forget ireland a century ago was what i think we would find that defined as ae fragile states index

fairly fragile country. -- i don't think there is much profit to be made from looking at immigration through that lens. i think that the immigration debate is one that comes a bit of an 800 pound gorilla in the room. results, what we looked into in that particular referendum, it was fundamentally built upon immigration. looking at our data, our impressions on immigration, whether it was the normal forgration flows professional or economic reasons, or refugees, the impressions were falling on the united kingdom. the leaf campaign to be -- for

the leaf campaign to be pushing a campaign that immigration was getting worse, that is not what the data was showing. it is showing the increasing grievance pressure, more accurately capturing what was really happening with that campaign. host: jerome, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for having me. what is the connection between the refugee crisis today and the rise of groups like isis and the invasion in iraq in 2003. host: the impact on the fragile states index? guest: the refugee crisis in europe is really having very real effects on countries. some of the most worsened countries year on year is year were european. the most worsened country this year was hungry, which is

experiencing refugee flows. facing pressure from internal problems as well, closing civil society space, political problems, increasingly authoritarian rules. is one of the most worsened countries in 2015. guest: very much economically based. i do suspect the refugee crisis is also having an effect. to not assigned to much blame to the refugee flows for creating instability. there are many countries around the world that are experiencing severe pressures from refugees. countries like cameroon, -- experiencing huge refugee

flows from nigeria. kenya arelike experiencing significant refugee flows from somalia. kenya has one of the largest refugee camps on earth and a country like jordan or lebanon also experience in honest refugee flows, whether it be from syria or if we go back to the palestinian territory. pressure from refugee flows are not new. it is also important to recognize what the connection to isis and other terrorist movements is. his refugee flows are occurring largely as a direct result of that instability, people want to take their families to safety. being a refugee is not an easy

decision. to pack up your life and leave your country and home and head to a future of distinct family,nty, with your and putting the family at risk and jeopardy is not an easy decision for anyone to make. i think we do see a direct connection in terms of that instability fueled by terrorism that is pushing these refugee flows into regions of the world where people hope for a safer and brighter future. host: out of curiosity, the kenyan fiji camp you mentioned to be the largest in the world. how many people? guest: about a million people. an enormous refugee flow. there is concern at the moment that the kenyan government may be looking to close the camp. host: are those mostly from somalia? guest: the majority. host: we have a few moments left with j.j. messner. jack, good morning. caller: thank you.

your guest has a handle on this. my question is with the refugees flowing into the western europe there, i feel terrible when i children, people like that. is there a tipping point? these countries that are relatively stable, is there a tipping point where a government will just set up military means to prevent them from coming in? so the whole stable country does not collapse? on the second point, with the mexican flow, the south american , mexican flow into the united states, that is really affecting our little income minorities and poor whites. the united states needs to ubstitute -- has to subsidize these poor minorities and whites because the mexicans

are coming over. we are paying a ransom to welfare, medicaid, all this stuff. the poor people on the bottom rung, they are pushed out by these illegals. i think it is a terrible situation. your guest has a handle on it. i want to thank him very much and c-span. i'm going to get off the phone to listen to your comments. guest: i think, first of all, on the immigration from latin because first of all, i think it is important we recognize that at the moment, the level of mexican immigration net downslope. mexicansmore leaving the united states then coming the other way. not that i am saying the color was doing this, but let's not demonize mexico either.

it is a transit point for immigrants from a number of different latin american countries. , mexico'sf course size and proximity does make it a larger part of the debate. without getting too much into or theon low-wage jobs pressures borne out by immigration flows, i think we do need to have the realization that a lot of this is economically driven. policy can deal with it to an extent. but that does have consequences. if we look at the european union and the reaction to those refugees flows, we are seeing the resurrection of border control throughout the european union. it's not forget the european union has thrived on many years now of open borders, where there was free movement of people and

capital. now, as a policy response to refugee flows, the very function of the very utility of that union is now being put at threat as countries do reinstate border control where they have not decades.or there is a response, but let's not -- those kinds of responses connection undermined the regional framework of the european union. host: are you more worried about the tipping point the caller was talking about? or the response having a negative impact ? guest: the response. this is not the first refugee flow and it will not be the last.

it is how it is managed. it is how policymakers respond. haveries around the world dealt with overflows in the past. challenge to such a with a liberal policy that undermines the liberal framework of a regional organization in the sense of the european union is worrying. host: time for a few more calls. melvin, columbia, south carolina. caller: good morning, you had a caller who called in about refugees. the only difference is the color. it was a racist statement he made. it was a racist statement he made. it was the light-skinned refugees. if it is a dark skinned refugee,

there is a problem. that is a problem with the world and this country for years and years and years. this guy, because the skin is dark, they are not as good, they don't work as hard. that is the real deal. if you keep thinking like that. racism has destroyed the country and is destroying the world. that is why you have terrorism. thing.ll a color until we eliminate that and there is peace -- there will not be peace or harmony because of racism. i hate to say that, what it is the truth. ,od bless america and the world everybody be successful. thank you. host: eric is in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: the biggest factor of all these calls about population explosion, we should follow the

example of china. what would happen to china if they had not done that. host: do want to talk about population? guest: population explosion is certainly an increasing pressure for a number of countries, particularly those countries ill-prepared to be able to deal with those increases, whether it structures orial even infrastructure. but the question then does become, what does that policy respond? if we recognize this is an existential problem for a country, do we follow the chinese model with a one child policy to deal with the population increases as a policy -- response?ion mar china has moved away from the one child policy.

it is no accident that it is a problematic policy. if you look at it through the lens of solving a population explosion, perhaps you could argue there is some success. but to do so would be to ignore the intense social pressures that that has placed upon chinese families. that that has placed upon society at large. you might be solving one problem , but are you actually calling more underlying tensions and pressures within society through one policy response. host: just a minute left. i want you to comment on the most sustainable countries. the nordic countries are doing very well. 170th, at the high-end of stable and sustainable. norway, 177. finland, the most sustainable country in the rankings.

why do nordic countries do so well? guest: they do benefit from being in their neighborhood. i think having a ring of stability around them, western europe, it helps in large part for scandinavian countries. the success is not that straightforward. it comes down to issues such as rule of law, stable democracy, economic success, also demographic pressures as well are relatively subdued in those countries. you have a fairly stable population that we see group grievance is fairly low. those kind of factors do help also the countries that are given particularly well for similar reasons, new zealand,

australia. quite isolated from instability in geography really does help. host: jj messner's executive director of funds for peace. appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: next on this fourth of july weekend, weekend today talking about the meaning of patriotism in today's united states with some polling showing a drop in patriotism in recent years. we want to know how you define that word. our lines are split up regionally. you can start calling in now and we will be right back. >> i never felt the urge to make

money. what turned me on in the 60's was to make policy. that always is what drove me. >> tonight, a two-part interview with former public interest lawyer and politician mark green. in which he talks about his life and career in public office. drive.have got to have a you have got to wake up and go to sleep and think i want this so much -- if you do everything, you win. 8:00rt one airs tonight at eastern and part two will air p.m. --at nine, pn -- 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. , the new, kathy grillo

had a public policy and affairs policy in washington on net neutrality and the need for more spectrum. reporter johny mckennitt. >> there are some characteristics of this spectrum that make it complicated. there is a narrow line of sight. >> it doesn't go through walls very well. >> there are some issues with that but there are a lot of complex engineering developments that have developed these new antennas. there is a way to adjust for that kind of issue that will make it more usable. >> watch the communicators monday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> washington journal continues. >> in our last 30 minutes of the washington journal today, we are asking you simply how you define

patriotism in the united states today, a question we decided to put forth on this fourth of july weekend as we show you some of the newspaper front pages from around the country. here are the front pages of the montgomery advertiser. the front page of the kansas city star today, a divided nation unites on the fourth. the chair came to be in saying "happy fourth. we are asking you to weigh in on this topic this morning on how you define patriotism at the time when the country is seeing new lows when it comes to the question of whether people are extremely proud to be american. here is began lip polling report that came out last week. 52% of u.s. adults say they are extremely proud to be americans. a new low in the 16 year trend.

9/11,tism spiked at peaking at 73% in 2003. a five point drop in 2013. of peoplee the chart who say they are extremely proud to be american. the percentage of those who said they were dropping steadily since 2000. getting your thoughts of this morning, phone lines split up regionally. we will start with mary in austin, texas. how do you define patriotism? >> i define patriotism as the willingness to put -- to sometimes sacrifice your best interest for the good of the country and coming together for the good of the country and i certainly would not define it as the way we have seen donald

trump for instant trashing the country when he goes overseas. >> going in and out there. give us a call back. eastern and central time zones. a little bit more from that .allup poll in america's declining patriotism is likely related to broader dissatisfaction with the way things are going in the u.s. in january 2004 169% work-family proud to be an american, 55% of americans were satisfied with the way things were going in the u.s. that is the last time satisfaction was at the majority level. including the 29% in gallup's most recent update.

american patriotism stay relatively flat from 2006 through 2013 that spanned the great recession and barack obama's election. over the last three years, americans willingness to say they are extremely broad to be an american has declined further. those saying they are extremely proud to be an american is the definition gallup using when they are talking about patriotism. we want to hear how you define that term. eduardo is in the bronx, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. -- fine can you hear me? the way weiotism sacrifice ourselves for our for ourand what we do country. it doesn't always have to be fighting but what we do for our country.

you understand what i'm saying? but i have seen a lot of decline -- afterhere have been the gulf war, there has been a that got verys corrupted. isis was created. , itarmy didn't fight iraq was al qaeda who fought the united states. we lost a lot of lives. not only that, we did nothing. we created a bigger scare against us. host: you think that had an impact on patriotism in the u.s.? caller: i think it has. i can tell you myself, i wanted to be a navy seal. i came to this country at the

age of 14. when i came here, i came from cuba. i was born in a communist country. this is like it's becoming a coming his country with money. this is the way i look at it. host: why is that? caller: i will give you an example. one person has to make sure you go to work, everybody goes to school. i was in a student when i came here. when i came to this country, i saw immigration and they gave me indefinite approval. they told me they were planning another invasion against cuba.

with indefinite approval, i could go fight back in cuba. i wanted to be a navy seal but i was moved to the bronx. we will go to grace in minnesota. how do you define patriotism? caller: i define it as being very proud of my country. i know we have a lot of problems and a lot of ups and downs but isough it all, our country -- there is no other country like it. when i see the flag and when i hear the star-spangled and her, i just cannot hold back committee years. -- i3 years old and i just know we have a lot of problems. but we've had a lot of problems in the past and have gotten through them and we are still here and will always be here for everybody to come and live in this country. of thes a part

patriotism, to be proud of the ups as well is getting over the downs? caller: yes. i've lived through the downs and not real downs but a little down but we will be back up again if everybody gets -- the problem is i wish there were more jobs for people and i wish we would have a higher wages. i love my country. old and i couldn't -- i wouldn't want to live anywhere else. i came -- my grandparents came from germany and sweden and they were farmers in minnesota. i'm just proud of that. host: appreciate the call. wilson is in houston. onare getting your thoughts how you define patriotism. caller: i define the word being very negative because i am very

proud of my country and i feel always been. have there for every country in the world and i don't like the way things are going. when we have a tragedy, that is when the world comes together as a whole but we shouldn't come together as a whole just because of a tragedy on u.s. soil. we should always be united together. i don't like the way they have disrespected our president. him i'll kinds of names and everything. that is not american. american way -- host: who is they? about? you talking people who live in the united states or people around the world? caller: no, i'm talking about the ones that -- let me say it

like it is. the ones in the white house, congress, the senators, the ones that -- donald trump. ok? some democrats, some republicans, some independents. it's just the idea they put out as poison and in young people's minds and we are trying to give them wisdom and knowledge of our country. to be in thisoud country and this country has never, never as long as i have lived over 90 some years, this country has never took on this kind of problem where we cannot be united. right.ll laura in conway, arkansas.

how do you define patriotism? caller: edward snowden. why is edwards noted a patriot? will go to benjamin in arkansas. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. go ahead. caller: my comments about patriotism -- i served the u.s. army for six years and i've also patriotism.line of a lot of it seems to be in my opinion, the wave of political correctness that has swept. what is this melting pot of nation we live in? we are multicultural to begin with but the political correctness has literally stifled any ability to care too much about one thing in particular. host: give an example. caller: it's just -- i hate to

see it and i'm not sexist, racist. when our public media focuses more on issues that are really not pressing matters, to me what would be at the forefront of figuring world such as out which bathroom a transgender is going to enter. we have people literally dying and starving every day. our country has lost its mind with putting what truly matters at the forefront of everything. as a patriot, that crushes my heart. i havegone to iraq come fought for this country, a country i'm still proud of. totill see people too afraid have an opinion on the days based on offending someone else. it's all about offending someone else these days. the democratic party that has been running us and beyond not -- that -- i have seen the

decline. the more globalist we become and the less we care about ourselves, we have no patriotism left because no one cares anymore because our own rulers see no care. host: diana in new jersey. caller: i define patriotism as a love of my country, which means i pay attention, i care about the issues. i participate in my elections, i pay my taxes and understand when i pay my taxes, it's a service to provide so we all get along and have a quality of life, a standard of living. these wealthy people and multinational corporations that hide their money offshore, that -- these companies that employ all of these really complicated tax schemes and in the end, it's

just making them richer, they corrupted our political system by buying our elected officials to make the rules and laws to benefit themselves. that is not patriotism. patriotism is when a person realizes they have to fight for their country. seriously lacking. half our population doesn't vote so we need to wake up america and pay attention and get educated about what will make -- goodtry strong infrastructure. it's not just giving them tax breaks. if they love our country, they would put the jobs here and participate and do what the old rich people used to do, build hospitals, railroads, private public partnerships. let's go to molly in north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. is -- i'm patriotism 85 years old and i came here

odd years ago.0 i love this country, it's good to me and i've been good to it. but i think people should not wear the united states flag as a pair of shorts, throw it in the sand, sit on it. that is unpatriotic. host: why is that unpatriotic? caller: that is the united states flag and they are stepping on it. even though it's a pair of shorts and a t-shirt, they shouldn't be throwing it in the sand. madenited states flag was to be flown high and proud. don't you agree? host: i want to get your thoughts on this. the gallup poll we talked about earlier shows that young adults lead the decline of patriotism and the people that say they are extremely proud to be americans. peak, all major

subgroups showed significant declines but the largest came among young adults from 60% in 2003 to 34% now. does that surprise you? caller: no it doesn't. again, i blame not on the united on as flag being worn person as a pair of shorts, a sweaty t-shirt, and being thrown in the sand. they have no regard that that is the united states flag. this ought to be something that congress passes. you cannot wear the united states flag. it's meant to be worn high. host: let's get this and the a in miami, florida. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. i'mer: i define patriotism, finding out that indigenous americans are the people we call

black negro and colored. thate not paying attention we fought in all the wars and we are treated very badly. we are the true indigenous people. all to look for you into that even further. host: jim in alto, texas. caller: good morning. patriotism is standing up against things like the patriot act. standing up against all of these traders acts. with things like c-span and other availability of information, people don't even on. what is going we have a 7% approval rating and congress.

out of hundreds of millions of americans, what is to be proud of in this country? people are too busy watching oprah. patriotism to me is getting mad at our congress, the traders. i love the country. host: before you go, to that question that gallup asked whether you are extremely proud to be an american, would you say you are extremely proud to be american? caller: i'm not proud at all. clinton and trump represent us? what's to be proud of? people don't know what is going on. host: all right. a few comments from twitter as we have been talking to our viewers on the phone.

caller: good morning. me means totic to love your country, to love the native americans can exaggerate that and you support it anyway you can whether it is supporting your

family and supporting the schools, the hospitals. you have got to keep the government people in line. that is the way we support each other and we defend this country not the way it is being run now. we are being run over by our government officials from the top to the bottom and other people who illegally enter our country. i'm not talking about those who come here legally. uphave to stand up and speak for ourselves. thank you very much. happy fourth of july. stories to show you on this fourth of july weekend. here's a story from the new york times on a topic we have covered on the washington journal on

s and spending on military musicians. the pentagon field with an dsndred military ban worldwide. million as cost $437 year, almost three times the budget of the national endowment for the arts. the story noting the house of representatives passed a bill that forced the military to give a detailed accounting of the expensesivities and and limited where and when the bands can perform. the house committee asserted a line saying the committee believes the services may be able to conserve and strengthened by reducing the number of military bands. the topic we covered in one of our segments on the washington journal if you want to look up that c-span, it's at c-span.org. in theitary band

limelight this weekend. we are asking our viewers what your definition is of the word patriotism. mary is in philadelphia. caller: thank you for this time to speak about patriotism. this will be my 63rd fourth of july. i remember thinking during the reagan years when things started to go down, i remember we worked at a pretty decent job. he had a pretty decent way to her in a living and then of course that's a pretty decent way to earn a living -- we had a pretty decent way to iron a living. and there are more practices against certain groups of people. i don't understand how you can love a geographical area and not the people in it.

everybody has human dignity and when we come back to the dignity faults,at includes the saying not everyone has to be perfect. tend toin america, we get a little confused about things. means if you me can't love the people of the nation, the people who want to come to the nation and take care it'se ones that are there, all for the love of a nation. in lancaster, pennsylvania. you are up next. caller: i define patriotism since i was born on flag day, i think that we should get back to saying the pledge of allegiance in our schools. when i was in school, we always

said the pledge of allegiance and one time, this kid said he was not going to say it. i think that would bring a lot of unity back into our country because we are one nation under god and i think it would be so helpful and every time we see the flag, we should pray and i want to thank all the men and women who served in the armed also what freedom and upsets me about this country is the abortion issue. i think everybody has a free will and they can have an abortion if they want to but if they do, god says it's wrong but if they do, they should pay for it. not the government. can i ask you about your

thoughts on the pledge of allegiance why youth inc. that would be so helpful if people say it every day, just because a mix people think about our country every day? caller: yes. that he in his promises will turn from your wicked ways and i think that will make people think about god, one nation under god, and we will pray for this nation. that is what we need is more prayer and just saying the pledge of allegiance, we used to have to salute the flag in school and stand up and that has all gone away. i think that would be a start. laurie in indiana. good morning. caller: good morning.

i feel very grateful to live in this country. .'m so proud my father at 15 went into the an into the mills. you had brought that up earlier .alking about the mill areas he went to work there and that world war ii came. he was a marine. we were so proud of our country. no more pledge of allegiance but on our money, it says in god we trust and i think that would help and i think the biggest problem with being at war now for 15 years, if they never went into iraq where there was no weapons of mass destruction, all

these countries you had talked in soearlier would not be much distress. it would have gone where it has gone today. appreciated that and all of our colors today. lori will be our last caller but coming up tomorrow on the fourth of july, we will be joined by terry jeffrey, the editor in cbs news. and will be talking about liberty in the united states today and we will be joined by michael prejudge, the former iraqi intelligence advisor to in iraq.etronius he's currently an adjunct fellow. battlingurity forces in the ongoing coalition efforts. that is coming up tomorrow morning on washington journal.

in the meantime, have a great sunday. >> next, newsmakers with the dr. ci.hony fauc then the house select committee on benghazi releases its report on the embassy attack and president obama's address to the canadian parliament. >> on newsmakers this week, we fauci.ned by dr. anthony we will be talking about the zika