the national alliance on mental illness senior policy advisor discusses so-called red flag laws. podcast hostches mark leon goldberg talks about foreign affairs. host leon garber -- leon goldberg talks about foreign affairs. ♪ host: good morning. it is wednesday, august seventh. flags remain at half-staff. we begin our program on the topic of politicizing mass shootings. we want to know if you think it happened this week in the wake of the dual tragedies. if it has happened, where have you seen it? the phone lines are open. republicans, it is 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000.

independents, 202-748-8002. you can also catch up with us on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. a very good wednesday morning, you can start calling now. a note to begin on the president's travel schedule, the president going to dayton, ohio, and el paso, texas. daytond to arrive in around 10:30 and he will be joined by melania trump. he will head to el paso, texas around 1:45 local time and expected to depart about 2.5 hours later. here is one of the headlines about the president's trip. shaken cities await trump. conway,e from kellyanne "he goes trying to heal communities. meeting with those injured and

loved ones who survived." one person the president will not be meeting with today is veronica escobar. her series of tweets from last night explaining why. the white house invited me to join the president and my response was clear. i requested a phone call with him to share what i have heard from many constituents including some who are victims from saturday's attack. my message would have been he needs to understand his words are powerful and have consequences. using racist language dehumanizes us and inflames others. she was told the president was too busy to have that conversation. i refused to be an accessory to his visit. i refused to join without a dialogue his -- the pain his racist actions and words have caused our community in the country. the president expected to travel to both those cities. this morning on the washington

journal, a question for you about politicizing mass shootings. do you think it has happened question if so, where? do you think it happened this week? we will start on the line for republicans, john in kansas. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i find it kind of ironic shooter, they checked his emails, whatever, and he was a supporter of elizabeth warren and nothing is brought out about that on all the channels that support democrats. of course, they want to hammer the president on the el paso -- the same thing. everything bury that is negative against them and point out everything that is positive against them. host: do you think mass shootings immediately become politicized? caller: of course they do.

the first thing you want to hear from the left is to take my guns away and they are just waiting for an incident and as soon and incident happens, they go right before the cameras. i fear for the victims, that is the problem, but i definitely don't want my guns taken away. host: angela in virginia, you are next. caller: quick comment. what if they proposed legislation regarding the purchase of a firearm? mindsetone is in a bad or they are mentally ill, they put a three day wait period for a background check and when they come back to get the weapon after three days, they may have changed. they may not be in the same headspace or maybe not the same state of mania. that is all i have to say. host: do you think that is

something that is possible right now in the wake of the tragedies this past weekend? do you think that is something that can move in a time when we have not seen major done legislation move in along long time on capitol hill? caller: that is a great point. i think there is a lot of push from the democrat side. i think if we unify, sooner or later we will have to do something about it and i think this shooting made it evident we need to get moving on legislation sooner rather than later. host: usa today out with a new poll they conducted with it sauce -- with ipsos. 59% of republicans say the u.s. measuresould pass two approved by the house that would tighten background checks on gun purchasers. 67% support passage of the bill and more than half surveyed said mitch mcconnell should cancel the senate's august recess and

hold about on that. as we continue with more of your phone calls, pat, cincinnati, ohio. independent. you are next. caller: i think it is up to mcconnell to release that bill he has been holding since february. bipartisan much is a bill and how does he know trump would veto it? he does not know that, he never talked about it. host: this is roy out of florida, a democrat. good morning. caller: ef. the mass shootings. first of all, trump doesn't need to go to el paso, number 1. they need to get a background check and an assault weapons ban . it has been going on too long. none of these other countries have this problem. they want to shoot those

weapons, they should be kept at gun rages -- gun ranges. donald trump has ruined this country. it took him three days to come out and say anything. they don't need him down there right now after all he has said. it is ridiculous. host: speaking of the president as he prepares to head to dayton, ohio, he is up and tweeting about the topic our first caller, a republican caller brought up, what has been dug out of the background of the dayton, ohio, shooter on his twitter feed. the president citing a report from the one america news network saying i hope other news outlets will report this as opposed to fake news. said is what the president . yesterday at the white house, kellyanne conway in one of her

early-morning briefings with reporters in the white house driveway talked about this topic and this idea of politicizing mass shootings. [video clip] >> i would not do that anymore than i would blame aoc for the fact the guy wanted to shoot up the i.c.e. detention center in washington state was parroting her language about concentration camps. i did not blame bernie sanders for the fact a bernie sanders supporter shot up steve scalise on that baseball field. did not blame him for that even though he said i am here to kill republicans. it would be nice if they came together in a bipartisan way as leader mcconnell and the president asked them to do and turn down the temperature. i am proud we are represented by a president who did not politicize this and respond in kind to those who immediately gold.rying to spin

it is not right, he does not heal a single soul or prevent a mass shooting. he is working to listen to everybody's input. >> does the president want mcconnell to call the senate back into session? >> around here, the president works constantly and we wonder why they leave 6 months in the first place. host: kellyanne conway yesterday from the white house. chuck schumer held a press conference of his own. king, onened by peter of the 8 supporters -- republican supporters in the house of that universal background checks bill that had wide support among democrats. chuck schumer calling for mitch mcconnell to move that house-passed legislation on background checks and here are some of his comments from yesterday.

[video clip] >> this is the bill, hr8. it is a piece of paper, but it is a piece of paper that could save lives. this represents more than just about anything else that could need done to stop the violence such as occurred in dayton and el paso. it had bipartisan support in the house and if leaner mcconnell would simply bring this to the floor of the senate now, i believe it would pass. we are saying to leaner mcconnell, do the right thing, gaveled the senate into an emergency session so we can take immediate action on the bipartisan already done legislation peter and others successfully shepherded through the house of representatives. by ways of -- have passed since the house passed the bill.

all we heard unfortunately was leader mcconnell's silence. we can get this done. i am the author of the brady law in 1993, but there are loopholes. people have gone around the idea that there should be background checks. felonsno americans feel should get guns or those adjudicated mentally ill should get dunn's or spousal abusers should get guns. that is all this bill does, that is all it does, but it would save a whole lot of lives. a whole lot of lives. no more online purchase loopholes, no more gun show loopholes. if you want to buy a gun, you have to get a background check, that is what this law would do. host: chuck schumer yesterday in new york. we have been showing you the latest on the responses from the white house and members of

congress. we are asking you this morning about politicizing mass shootings. do you think it happened in the wake of those tragedies in dayton? in el paso, texas? if you have seen it, where? one column on this from cheryl hill newspaperhe is where her column was published. she is the host of the sunday tv show on the sinclair network's full measure. her headline, political blame is not a solution. it seems as if each time there is a new tragedy, some in the media -- some little figures and some in the public wait long enough to find out detail that supports their political agenda and they let loose with political blame. there are political issues, policies to discuss, but the over-the-top vitriol blames out

productive conversation. cheryl adkinson on this idea of politicizing mass shootings. want to know what you think, setting aside the first hour of the washington journal for this conversation. jim in north dakota. republican. you are next. caller: can you hear me ok? host: yes, sir. say i: just wanted to wanted to get through earlier, a couple days ago and the thing that bothered me the most and the greatest example of the institutional bias was the first shooting that happened about a month ago. they seem to come in two or three or four. the first shooting we talked about was virginia beach. there was a shooting, 18 people killed. msnbc and c-span spent two

minutes on it and they covered it up. that is because so many people on the left are their own commissars. i would tell you to go back to the days after the shooting and watch this program because we certainly covered that an open the phone discussion on that. caller: you did not. you never showed who it was. the guy's name was dewayne craddock and he was a black muslim. it did not fit the template of the politics, so that is why -- i watch you guys every morning before i go to work. shootings,f these not one of them took their cue from trump. they are mostly democrats. the guy in dayton was an elizabeth warren fan. i have read his manifesto.

most of our shooters and bombers for the last 120 years have been leftists or an artist. the people on the right don't .ormally do these things the shooter in california, the garlic festival was not a trump supporter. even the shooter last year in pittsburgh was -- his manifesto said he was angry at trump. kellyanne conway stole my thunder. i was looking into the guy in the,. -- tacoma. he was one of these antifa punks and said he took his cue from aoc. she incited his rate talking about the analogy of border 's/nts being nazi

. the guy in el paso was attacking over environmental reasons because he thought there was too many immigrants. i bought a gun 5, 6 years ago in pennsylvania. i am not an angel. i had one misdemeanor in 1990. when i walked into the gun shop and they make the phone call, they look at you and say research and then they look at -- i have to5 days wait 15 days if there is anything on my record and they call and if you don't come back on that day, you have to go through the process -- call back on that day, you have to go through the process again. a gun int even buy pennsylvania if you have two misdemeanors, let alone a felony. you cannot give -- get a gun if you are a felon. host: before you go, you talk

about the different manifestoes and it seems like you have read them. why do you read them and how do you go about finding them to read them? caller: the el paso one was on drudge. other people posted them. i read several paragraphs. the el paso dude -- i don't know. host: what do you take from them? why do you read them? caller: i want to know the motive. when everyone is screaming donald trump's words is causing them -- don't they call that magical thinking? the concept that somebody's words and thoughts can control your life? that is not something for a western civilization to believe in. donald trump is one of the most pro-israel guys there is. even the earlier attacks, the guys who caused the belief in guy-semitism, that was the

responsible for all those robo calls, he was a lack bernie sanders supporter. to work everys go day and we have our guns and go fishing and we don't hurt anyone. host: edward is next in manchester, connecticut. good morning. on how tohave an idea stop all this gun violence. i am a registered independent. i am not sure if i will go to the right or left in this election, it is too soon to tell. if we can put in a system of government that works for all of us and our nation and our people and not just some of us, that something and the idea

is older than this nation. before we became americans, we were promised to be a self governed people by our votes, not by representatives or members of government voting on everything they put up for vote. i think the power of the purse and the power to put things up the power they should have had from the beginning and the people who have to pay for those things and they have earned the right to vote on everything. we should randomly select voters , male and female from each party, from each state and our union, our country, unless our people sit in the seats of power voting on everything our representatives put up for vote issue by issue and law by law. our vote ashem earn to what passes by explaining to us why we need these things they

put up for vote. then we can work together as all americans should and deliberate like jurors randomly selected in our justice system before casting our vote on anything they put up for vote to be sent to the senate to be refined and make sure it works. host: that is edward with his plan out of connecticut. james in tennessee, good morning. caller: good morning. please don't cut me off. i have been listening and you can tell some of these people calling in from the republican side are just as racist as trump is. politicians lose family members, they don't care.

i don't care who doesn't like what i am saying. until the gun hits their house and they have to go to their mama's or sister's or brother's funeral. thank you. host: jamie out of south carolina, republican. go ahead. us thisre you with morning? one more try because i think i hear the tv in the background. we will go to rick out of florida, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i think there ought to be public armories and people check them a librarybook into book, but only assault weapons. we can track them that way.

these are very destructive military weapons that need to be tracked. don't take them away, but put them in the armory. host: defined assault weapon because the conversation about how you define that is a big part of trying to understand this topic. caller: anything that shoots at a time. bullets host: are you talking about automatic weapons? caller: i am talking about automatic and assault weapons. pay forgun companies these armories, that will get their attention and that is really all i have to say. i will listen to you now. host: we will listen to you. denise in new york. caller: kudos to jim from north dakota. he had a lot of information. back to whether it is

politicized, i think just the the way theyard politicize it. be au think he will distraction to the city? they are causing more the problems, the way the press handles it. in my opinion, every gun has the potential to be an assault weapon because you can assault anybody with it. i don't know how i feel about all of it, but i think the press has a problem with it and when we have leaders that refuse to meet with the president, that is the problem in our country. congressman should not be allowed to do that or should not be allowed to not show up to vote. we all work with people we do not like. some of them are liars, some of them might be racist, but we have to go to work and do our

job. i expect our leaders to have to do the same thing. host: what do you think about how the dayton mayor is handling this? this from the dayton daily news saying she will greet the president when he comes to dayton, but says his rhetoric has been painful for many and i think people should stand up and say they are not happy if they are not happy he is coming. caller: i thought she handled it appropriately. i thought the gentleman from el paso did, but i think it is the congressperson from el paso, also, you may have shown it this morning -- was asked to meet with the president -- host: congresswoman escobar, a freshman out of the el paso area, right. caller: she is refusing to meet with him, but she wanted to have a conversation and said he did

not have time to have a phone call. that is how you get somebody's ear, to meet with them. i feel the same way about those women in soccer. joe people, even weekend back in the day used to say president trump was not racist from what they knew about him and a few talked to him, you would have a good conversation with him. you cannot change anything if you refuse to sit down and talk. the other thing, i hope you guys cover it. all the people protesting like outside mitch mcconnell's house and getting real personal, they pace, protest at his work -- workplace, not his home. all the trump voters posted their names online to intimidate not to -- i think that stuff has

gone too far and we all have a right to go left or right and i tend to be center-right. right now, i have not seen a candidate i like out of the left other than biden who seems to be the most middle. news.the when you've got channels just covering -- trying to create controversy to keep the hate going so they can get more people to vote next year, that is all they are trying to do and it is really sad we have grown people that act that way and that is what they are teaching our children. host: this is the story you ofught up, joaquin castro texas publicized a list of san antonio residents and businesses who donated the maximum amount to president trump's reelection

effort. from the washington times reporting today. politicizingabout mass shootings. do you think it happened this week in the wake of the dayton and el paso tragedies? here is one story from abc news about a twitter campaign called politicize my death. those three stark words rang out in hundreds of tweets in the wake of the two mass shootings. social media users gave each other permission to make their potential death in any future mass shooting part of a political conversation about ending gun violence. the comments reflect growing frustration and outrage over prior responses to mass shootings in which elected figuress and public

have not called on others not to politicized the -- often called on others not to politicized the tragedies. here is one of those examples from the abc news story they cite from twitter over the weekend. if i die in any mass shooting, you have my permission to politicize my death immediately. don't let it be in vain. getting your thoughts on politicizing mass shootings. thomas in las vegas, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: i don't think these people are killing for political reasons. you are only hurting your own side. . don't see the point in that there are too many guns in this country. you think somebody would have a

gun shooting back. host: herbert out of georgia, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, john. you have to tell the facts of how a mass shooting starts. this is what i want to say, john. behind hitler -- he had all .is soldiers this -- these men don't have a conscience marching people to their death following one man. is one man. you can get this guy to kill mexicans like he is doing. we have to stop this. if we don't stop this, we will go back to the same historical days of hitler. host: as we try to have

discussions about solutions, do you think hitler's analogies are helpful trying to have this discussion and talk about solutions? caller: we have a president doingg up there persuasion against mexicans and other nationalities. we don't need these assault weapons. i grew up -- i was around people in gangs. i don't care what kind of gangs. i don't think gangs need weapons. i don't care if it is black, jewish -- they should not have weapons. solution.e up with a they don't have no second amendment. gangs going out and robbing, whatever, you should not have a gun in your hand. host: this is chuck out of

florida. good morning. caller: a couple of points i want to make. a number one is the fact that if the polls are correct, a significant amount of people in america, over 90%, some polls say, want some form of gun control. the fact that nothing has been passed by congress is absurd. perhaps the only way to get things done even though the republican governor of ohio did something, which is positive, if all governors collectively did something may and had agreements with their fellow states, that could bring to bear some legislation that does come from the federal government. host: i will let you finish, but to fill in the details, ohio governor mike dewine unveiled

several proposals aimed at curbing gun deaths. among them, a red flag law. more access to dental health treatment and harsher penalties for felons who use guns. digging into that red flag law, which we will focus on one of the later segments, here is his variation on the deal. guns could not be removed before court -- a court's safety protection order is enacted. the nra supported emergency risk protection orders if they protect owner's due process rights not to have their property seized without a valid legal reason. go ahead and finish your statement. polled -- police were all law enforcement whether it , istate, local, whatever

would think the majority, significantly, would also want weapons band across the nation -- banned ross the nation. this should not be politicized. democrats are doing themselves harm because they are doing this. it is silly read everybody is hurt by it. it trump, some of his comments are outrageous, but this is the main thing, nothing was ever brought up in these democratic debates about gun control. fox is why cnn, msnbc, and should not do the debates. you guys should be doing it. an independent body should be doing all the debates. are we going to go into another 10 days or so from now and everybody is going to forget about it until something else will take its place.

host: do you think that is what is going to happen? caller: is that not what happened in the previous shootings? after those kids were killed in connecticut, you would think at that time people of good conscience who have kids, grandkids would have made laws that would have eliminated these weapons. maybe you should have a chauffeur gun owners to talk about what they would like to be taken off the plate people can buy. before, have done that we have had segments when only gun owners call into talk about this issue and you can find that at our archives at c-span.org. just search for the washington journal and you can go back to some of our previous shows. in the wake of past shootings, we have had that discussion.

patrick is next, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i have never been more concerned in my life about the technology. all these technological platforms being erected and the sudden formulation of legislation designed specifically to disarm the american people. this is a coordinated event. this has nothing to do with law-abiding citizens who own guns, regardless of whatever caliber they are going to purchase. america'ss of taking guns away is going to happen and part of this is the technological framework, which i guarantee has to do with 5g. host: patrick, are you still with us? caller: yes. host: i think we lost patrick. caller: joy in florida, go

ahead. host: -- joy in florida, go ahead. caller: regarding the politicizing of mass shootings, it is despicable on both sides and if they want to politicize it, it should not be about racism, it should be about the real issues, some sort of gun control and reforming gun laws and mental health laws and how we are helping people who have done these mass shootings are totally deranged or they would not have been able to create the acts they created. i am a supporter of being able to have guns, but i believe there are certain weapons that should not be available on the open market and the gun laws in place in texas, they have the right to carry. unfortunately, the law-abiding citizens in walmart did not have their guns inside the building because they are not permitted

in there.hem clearly, gun control is not going to help the average citizen stay alive during these incidents because the deranged people are going to have access to these weapons. maybe we can get the ones of the streetstion off and out of the criminal's and crazy people's hands. host: which ones are those? caller: the automatic assault rifle's, they have to go. i don't see any valid point to them. i come from a family of hunters. host: automatic weapons are already illegal. are you talking about semi automatic? caller: just the ones that carry like 100 rounds or 50 rounds or more, they need to be removed and the ones that are still out there need to be brought off the

streets and back to just basic handguns, not so automatic weapons. host: do you think some middle ground for banning high-capacity magazines? caller: that is it, exactly, that is what i am trying to say. that is exactly it and mental health. mental health is a huge issue. no one is talking about any bills for mental health. i don't think anyone since the gore administration has .ddressed mental health issues those are the things and these teens. people need to be involved in the community. this kid in dayton, everyone who knew him knew he had this desire to do mass killings, i yet no

one reported it because they did not think he would ever do it. host: a conversation at about 8:30 eastern on red flag laws and what different states have, what is being proposed on the federal level to hate -- help state programs. stick around for that discussion later. our topic in this first hour is the idea of politicizing mass shootings. do you think it happened this week? one of the comments from senator tim scott from his appearance sunday morning from faced the nation, he talked about politicizing mass shootings. here is what he had to say. caller: we need to take a step back from politicizing every event. human hate,ssue of something that resides in the heart unfortunately because of

social technology and social media, we see it connected to other folks with hate in their heart as well. what i say to everyone from the president to my house is we should take responsibility for how we respond to situations. i am grateful to president's response has been clear and decisive. i hope we always have that response in the face of hate and rage and racism. we have to build a better society. a society where we all see we are in the same boat poking holes or shooting holes in the --t only leads to tragedies tragedies -- casualties. act consistent with our values if we are to maintain the position, that is a -- not as a superpower economically, but a moral compass. i think we can do that and i believe we will do it again. host: that was senator tim scott

from sunday. we are getting your thoughts on politicizing mass shootings. stephanie in california, do you think it is happening this week? caller: i think it has been happening for a long time. i think the nra is responsible for a lot of propaganda because every time they suggest gun control, they jump to they are going to take away our guns and they promote fear among all these people and there are very serious misconceptions being thrown around right now. it is not the mentally ill doing these mass shootings. other countries have mentally ill people and don't have these shootings. it is simply not backed up by current research. i have a couple of suggestions. they seem kind of simple. ban high-capacity

magazines and assault rifles. ban bump stocks. red flag warning's should be reported by any mandated reporter and anybody with a restraining order should have their guns taken away and anybody with a history of domestic violence should have guns taken away and there are other things i don't think people have mentioned. we have immunized the gun manufacturers against any kind of repercussions from the use of their weapons and if somebody buys a gun, maybe they should be buying insurance. it seems to me one of the first things trump did was ease restrictions on the mentally ill getting guns. that was one of the first things he did in august. just to prove some of these points, i have a very personal story. my father died last year at 98 years old.

he had alzheimer's for 12 years. i watched him slowly lose it. never did he lose the right to buy a gun. one other thing -- host: circle back to the nra for a second. you said they are responsible for politicizing mass shootings. this is the statement from sunday afternoon, from the weekend, the nra is committed to the safe and lawful use of firearms by those exercising second amendment freedoms, we will not participate in the politicizing of these tragedies, but we will work in good faith protecte solutions that us all from people who commit these acts. host: in all these years, i have never seen them work in good faith. i remember charlton heston on -- weage saying we could could pry that gun from his dead

hand. it is those messages that stick with people. i know people think guns don't kill people, people kill people, but the truth is it is the people with guns that kill people. get those background checks, get those red flag warning's because it is people with guns killing people. host: we mentioned earlier that poll in thea today field over the past two days surveying 1000 adults on views about gun violence and mass shootings. republicans more likely to say violent video games play a role. 60% compared with 47% of democrats say that. democrats are twice as likely to blame gun manufacturers and the national rifle association. 72% versus 37% and when it comes to the president, nearly three of four democrats say some

responsibility is on the president who has been criticized for tweets condemned as racist and some of his provocative rhetoric compared to 23% of republicans. a 51% majority of republicans join 83% of democrats in blaming loose don laws. that from usa today, there report based on that survey in the field. james out of alabama, a republican. you are next. caller: i want to say a couple of things really quickly. blame. is not to i bought my first assault rifle, quote unquote -- "assault rifle." it is not an assault rifle. the assault rifle the military uses as another switch that say fully automatic or burst. if it is a semiautomatic, i have

a deer rifle that is twice as powerful that shoots just as rifle."an "assault it is twice as powerful because of the impact and caliber of the rifle. it is to shoot deer with. host: what about the caller earlier who said something she thinks should be banned these high-capacity magazines. what is your feeling? caller: why should the local sheriff's department, local police department be able to outgun me when i am a law-abiding citizen? that is ludicrous. host: do you think the sheriff's department is going to be shooting at you? come to takethey

.y firearms, they will be you guys think you can pass a law and everybody is going to turn them in. they did that in new zealand. 90% of the people in new zealand have said screw you, you will not get my guns. 60% of australians said the same thing, you are not going to take my firearms. host: how many guns do you own and what do you use them for? caller: how many guns i own is my own business, but i own three or four of what you all call doug lee, -- dirty, ugly, mean military guns. i use them for predatory control, i live on 50 acres. i have different varmints, whether it be coyotes or

and that is what i use them for and i also use them for enjoyment. i don't load them up in my car and go to town with them. they will stay in this house on this 50 acres and they will stay here until the sheriff's department comes with high-capacity magazines to take them and when they do -- i don't know if it will make the news, but it might. host: that is james in alabama. sal, an independent, good morning. caller: the caller before me from alabama is probably justifying what i am about to say. the two mass murders over the weekend -- it is becoming increasingly apparent politics caused it and politics

after it continues, the politicizing of it. my second point -- and i have three points. my second point is the second amendment was made during the infancy of our country and infancy of our military where we needed militias back then. we did not care whether or not our local police outgunned us, our local police were able to protect us. my third point is we need a comprehensive psychological testing and background testing for everyone who wants to have a gun in their household. i am not saying it will ban guns completely, but psychological and background testing as well as physical would determine what kind of pistol or what type of gun should be in your household. if there is a gray area that someone in your household has not passed completely, you

should not have an assault rifle, you should have a smaller pistol. i believe anybody that is concerned there military or police should not have more weapons than they do, that is a person that needs true psychological testing. this is very easy and you can have a national database that would be controlled by the department of homeland security that would say this is what the testing and background check is and this is the only type of pistol or gun or firearm that should be in that household. host: we mentioned congressman joaquin castro earlier. he has a column along with other hispanic leaders in today possible washington post. the headline, hispanics under attack. here is some of what he and others right.

many will not want to hear or understand this. hispanics are under attack. immigrants in this country are under attack and the president is fanning the flames of hate, division, and bigotry directed at us all. the president is dividing cover for white nationalists, explicitly endorsing hate speech and tacitly endorsing violence. we along with others of latino leaders demand leadership from both parties, call on them to stand with people and acknowledge the diversity in our country has been our greatest strength. leaders must have the strength to stand tall in actions that protect their fellow americans. if you want to read more, that column today in the washington post. bj in washington, d.c., a democrat. you are up next. caller: good morning read first

of all, i would like to say normally you would not want to politicize this. i totally understand because you have to think about the victims and the families. this has gone on for years and years now. i would think after those babies had gotten killed in newtown and sandy hook, that would be it. it would be over, it would be there is no way you can tell me when you see the faces of those little innocent babies, that we have not done something. when 9/11 happened years and years ago because i was part of that, i was a first responder dealing with that, the country came together. democrats,sman, all all republicans came together on the capital steps held hands and dhs was created, department of

homeland security was created and all of a sudden, all these different agencies and intel was going out and you mean to tell me we cannot come together to create legislation for domestic terrorism? host: why don't you think that can happen when it comes to ask shootings? what is the difference -- mass shootings? what is the difference? caller: to be honest with you, i really think it is money. the big companies want to wait and give thoughts and prayers and wait until the time goes by until some other distraction comes up and it is like, we forgot about it. when you hear calls "don't politicize this event, do you read that as an effort to keep the status quo? caller: yes.

yes, i do. you have to politicize this. we are not saying the families and the victims don't matter. of course they matter, but when are we going to do something? are we going to average 10 mass shootings every 6 months? i tell my family -- i am a first responder. i tell my family before you go out on the streets, pay attention to what is going on. when you go to these malls, make sure you know where the exits are. 30 years ago i was not even thinking about doing things like that. you heard a mass shooting, it was like it was way out of there and it will not happen. you have to consciously think about where you are going every day when there is a lot of people around. host: do you have kids? caller: yes, i do. host: how old are they for you

to have that conversation with them? caller: i have two older kids in their mid to late two smaller grandkids. it is stressful for me because i am thinking i know what i would do because this is what i do every day to train for. when i think about them i say make sure you guys be careful when you are going out on the street. host: when do you start having that conversation with a grandkid? caller: it is a work in progress, to be honest with you. i don't want to step on their parents toes at the same time, but i see and know things the average person does not think about. politicizing is something i am totally against, but it has to be done, there is no way around it. if you don't talk about it, if all the networks and politicians don't talk about it or

politicize it, what will get done? it will blow over like everything else. ast: you mentioned you were first responder on 9/11, do you mind talking about where you were? caller: i kind of do. it is local. i remember that day when 9/11 happened -- when i was listening to the radio, it was pandemonium. for those who don't remember, it was all kinds of -- information getting out where people did not know what they were talking about, but it was a chaotic day and a day i will never forget. host: david is next out of texas, republican. good morning. theer: yes, politicizing mass shooting, it is not going to do anything.

democrats are jumping all over it. the hate began when president trump was elected, that is when the hate began and democrats are the ones that started all of this, ok? thank you. host: before you go, what would you say to the last caller who says nothing gets done and this needs to be politicized because otherwise it is the status quo. caller: it is always politicized. what i am saying is the hate began when president trump won the election. that is when democrats started the hate. the mueller report came to nothing, the hate. democrats could not stand that they lost the election. they could not wait until the next election. the trait -- the hate began when president trump won the election. host: to robert in minnesota,

good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead. caller: first thing i wanted to do is answer the question which thees, we politicize shootings. it has happened this week and it happened this morning. i don't think that is necessarily a bad thing if we use the attention to improve. i think what we are doing now and many of the callers have said we are weaponizing it. supporter,s a bernie your guy was a trump supporter and that is making everything worse. host: how should it be handled? what would you like to hear from democratic leaders today? from the president when he goes to dayton and el paso? caller: full disclosure, i own several firearms. i have no problem with any of the laws that have been passed as far as background checks, even the red flag law.

if it saves one life, put me on your the fact of registry. i am not worried the government is going to take my guns. extended clips, mental health, anything, politicize it so it is for a purpose. pointing fingers is what we are doing now. democrat.nport, iowa, good morning. caller: good morning. i have two points. bade are three kinds of actors, the pulse nightclub, extreme right wing, and just plain crazy people, sandy hook. president obama is like a bright light in a bunch of cockroaches and bright light scares them away. president trump is like night vision.

cockroaches, out and it is easier to see. we need to stop blaming president trump and obama. we have a cockroach problem, not a president problem. the government has three kinds of political groups paralyzing the country. legislators, the nra, and refused tolia who pay attention to the first half of the we can't realistically confiscate 300 million guns, but we can tax bullet sales. we should tax gun and bullet sales. we already do it. refund ifive a tax you own insurance. let the insurance people sort that out. host: did you say you had a third point? caller: two. host: jack is our last caller in

this segment on "washington journal." plenty more to come today. next, we will turn to the topic of federal regulation of cbd. dr. scott gottlieb.tlie from thenald honberg national alliance on mental illness. ♪ --sunday night on q&a

>> we were taken out of the hall to this mob of angry people. talks aboutinger being physically attacked in 2017 after an appearance by charles murray on campus. >> at the end of your discussion, you left that room and went where and what happened? >> i don't really remember much of it. , but we't even tell you were taken out of the hall and confronted this mob of angry people, some of whom were in masks, they were shoving and jostling -- their target was charles murray. q&a.nday night on c-span's >> saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, female activists and the civil rights

movement. >> women were instrument will in helping to organize and put the march together. the event was purely dominated by men. eastern, at 4:30 p.m. the global significance of the declaration of independence during and after the american revolution. >> multiple translations of our declaration also made their way to columbia, venezuela and ecuador over the 50 year period after 1776. a half-century known to scholars as the age of revolutions. >> at 6:00 p.m., eyewitness accounts from inside the white house during the apollo 11 lunar landing. >> we take ourselves into the cabinet room throughout the day, you can see the windows were dark, we are in the nighttime, the module landed at 4:15 in the afternoon and the astronauts did not walk until later. tv everyrican history

weekend on c-span3. "> "washington journal continues. host: dr. scott gottlieb served as that when he commissioner of the fda -- 23rd commissioner of the fda, joining us this morning to discuss federal regulation of cannabidiol, cbd as it is better known as. explain what cbd is. guest: it is a derivative of the cannabis plant. it is an oil extract, previously only available from the plant you grow marijuana from. 2018 farm bill legalized the growing of hemp, which is a form of cannabis that has low concentrations of thc. hemp become seeing

a much more prominent agricultural crop. it can grow in poor quality soil, so you see it grown in lower quality soils. it could be a real opportunity for american farmers to develop a new crop. being able to derive cbd from hemp and market it, there's a hemp. pharmacies growing host: what is cbd used for? guest: right now, it is only used for one purpose. it is approved in a concentrated form for the treatment of certain seizure disorders. a lot of companies want to put cbd into dietary supplements and food. the way the law is constructed right now, that is not legal. all the cbd being put in pet food or different foods for human consumption, all of that

is really illegal under current law. how do you devise a regular tray pathway to allow it to be safely put into food products? host: how are they able to be put into food products if they are l illegal? guest: we took certain enforcement actions -- there were companies claiming cbd could treat all kinds of medical conditions. sweep those products off the market right now. debate andot of pressure from capitol hill to try to create a legal pathway for cbd to be allowed into food products right now. when congress passed the farm legislatorsof thought they were treating a pathway for cbd to be allowed into food products, but they specifically reserved those authorities.

host: we have a line for those who use cbd, 202-748-8003 is that number. otherwise, phone lines as usual. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. who is most likely to use cbd? guest: a lot of people are using it. it has become popular. unfortunately, people are using it based on assumption that they will derive some sort of therapeutic benefit. the places where cbd has demonstrated some potential medical applications, certain muscular disorders -- it is only approved in the treatment of very rare seizure disorders. it's not to say that there won't be other uses, benefits proven for cbd, but right now, there's a narrow set of things where there is reliable science

suggesting benefits. in pet food, there's a presumption if your dog cbd while you're at work, when you get home, your dog will be more relaxed. it is a very hokey use of cbd. host: you are concerned about risk. what are the risks? guest: there are risks associated -- the most obvious risk, liver toxicity. in concentrated forms, you could have liver toxicity. we have examples of that. if you have cbd for breakfast and cbd for lunch and cbd for dinner, you could get acumen live effect -- a cumulative effect. i saw pretty concentrated forms

-- when people would go online and buy cbd oil, they would get concentrated forms. has of the cbd being sold high concentrations of thc in it. host: give people a sense of how quickly this has become available and gone to the marketplace. is this all since the 2018 farm bill or was it something you saw the rise of when you were at the fda? guest: this has been building over time. it was being derived from the cannabis plant. what changed with the farm bill, thcfarm bill legalized low forms of cannabis, otherwise known as hemp, to be legally grown. more farmers will be planting hemp. people want there to be a legal

path to allow cbd to be put onto the market for companies who want to put it in foodstuff. the people marketing cbd tend to be small companies and some responsible players. the legitimate food companies want to be able to put cbd into their products but are holding back. you don't want an outcome where all the legitimate manufacturers are waiting on the sidelines and what you have flooding the market are manufacturers, many of whom are illegitimate. if consumers in congress want -- youo be a pathway supplyput into the food a product that was not previously in the food supply and is sold as a drug. host: we want to talk more about that regulatory pathway. dr. scott gottlieb left the fda earlier this year, returned to

the american enterprise columnte, wrote a recent in "the washington post" about cbd. phone lines for cbd users, 202-748-8003. otherwise, phone lines as usual. davia is up first out of huntsville. uses cbd. go ahead. caller: good morning, dr. gottlieb. i wanted to challenge you because it sounds like you are really only talking about cbd in the food supply. i'm actually recovering from my the head of the pain department at university of alabama birmingham highly recommends cbd as an alternative to opiates for pain treatment. , really, whatus

are your thoughts on that? beinge talk about cbd hemp derived or cannabis derived, there are a lot of things and play with that as well as just molecular structure . guest: there's other active ingredients in the cannabis plant, certainly, and in cbd. cbd is available as a dietary supplement. dietary supplements are regulated under food regulations. when we talk about something being in the food supply, it is interchangeable with being a dietary supplement as well. the caller is referencing using cbd as a dietary supplement, which is sold online as a dietary supplement. availablehat is demonstrating uses of cbd as

something that can be effective in the treatment of pain is flip. i don't think there's convincing data. a lot of patients are using it in that way and they believe they are deriving a benefit. we want to make it available for that purpose, we should do proper studies and look at the long-term benefits and long-term risks. host: when was there a proper study about this? guest: there's multiple studies underway for the purposes of studying cbd and cbd derivatives for potential applications as a therapeutic. a lot of the studies that are underway look at cbd and the treatment of various neuromuscular disorders, things like parkinson's, potentially. there's people who think it can be effective in the treatment of pain. the only place where it's been demonstrated to be safe and

effective is in the treatment of these seizure disorders. it is available in a peer in concentrated form -- p are and concentrated form. -- pure and concentrated form. host: valerie is a cbd user out of new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i started using cbd six weeks ago for pain in my back because i was desperate. what i would like you to comment on, there are a lot of studies going on right now. people in pain right now are so mesperate -- i've tried krato -- i was hoping there would be ystelex.dies with siste it is very expensive. guest: the caller brings up a larger challenge, a lot of

non-opioid alternatives for the treatment of pain. you see people with chronic pain conditions become long-term users of opioids. kratomim itself -- itself is a week opioid. it is a larger problem that we don't have effective non-opioid alternatives to treat pain. lunchhasn't been a free in this space. every drug has had some kind of liability associated with it, either abuse liability or risks associated with long-term use of the drug. this is a space where we need more active research looking at these new compounds. believe somens to of these active compounds could potentially be formulated in ways where they could have

therapeutic effects for the treatment of pain, but you want to formulate them in ways that you are delivering a precise dose and a responsible concentration, you understand the side effects and the scope of what the effectiveness can be. for the treatment of pain, there hasn't been a lot of literature. there have been studies but not a lot of convincing literature. host: how important is this issue on the realm of issues that the trump fda is dealing with right now? guest: as i was leaving the fda, when i was meeting on capitol hill, this came up almost every conversation i had with congress. i testified twice before congress and i had multiple questions on what the agency's approach was going to be to cbd. there is a desire to see a legal pathway for cbd to be put into food products and dietary supplements. farmers want to grow hemp.

in order to grow hemp profitably, this is a high-margin derivative for him. -- right now, there's no legal pathway to put it into the food supply. you need to properly define the risks and potential benefits. host: what is the time horizon for that happening? guest: the process i outlined in "the washington post" could be immediate. put in place expectations on what cbd would have to meet to be put into the food supply. it would have to certify how it is manufactured, it would have to be available only in low concentrations, make sure this cbd is coming from a responsible

source, it is in a purified form. we will exercise enforcement discretion and allow it to be put into the market as long as companies are working toward filing applications, petitions with the fda. you file a new food ingredient application, a petition demonstrating it can be safely used for that purpose, that you can safely put it into a food supply at a low concentration. the onus would be on the manufacturers to get those petitions in. an interim, the agency could to allowiscretion those products that meet certain conditions to help assure safe application. host: mary in ashburn, virginia. a republican. good morning. caller: good morning, doctor. that i'm clarify

calling about pets and cbd oil because i have no experience with people and cbd oil. i have a very small dog, about 12 pounds. on any given day, she's your normal, average small dog. whenever there's fireworks going off somewhere or a thunderstorm, she is a woody allen neurotic mess. just like you, i was extreme skeptical about all the products on the market for dogs and pets who suffer from anxiety because there's so many. i did a bit of research online and i purchased some oil -- i thought, what the heck, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but i tried. within an hour, she doesn't even notice there are thunderstorms. we've tried everything. we've tried to those thunderstorm jackets, holding her, swaddling her like a

newborn, and the oil actually works for her. guest: there's a lot of cbd being put into pet food. this is one of the biggest categories. it has become so pervasive that i think it will be hard to put the cat back in the bag, pardon the pun. host: are those studies being done? guest: there are not. literature on the food on the human side can translate to the animal side. --ee far less literature host: that information doesn't have to come to the fda? guest: it would be regulated as an animal food or animal drug. i'm not aware of a lot of literature going on looking at its application. it's important to keep in mind

that a lot of the cbd on the market -- there have been a lots looking at this -- of it has high concentrations of thc in it. some of it has high concentration of thc. you could be sourcing cbd, giving it to a pet, observing a therapeutic benefit because they are taking thc. host: washington. george, an independent. good morning. caller: i appreciate your show. my comment on the cbd -- in high school, they taught me marijuana will ruin you for life and mess your mind up. aboutgton state talked the carnage that would both fall

-- nothing happened. it's been good and our state has made millions and were not putting people in prison for it. my liver got damaged by six aspirin a day. does the doctor have chronic pain? as he tried cbd? i'm not a dope smoker, but i'm asking him that. guest: i appreciate the question and concerns. difference between legalization of marijuana and record realization -- decriminalization. the question of legalization, particularly for recreational use, is a separate question. there are studies that show that long-term use of marijuana affects short-term memory.

large conducting a experiment in this country by .aking thc widely available there are going to be long-term effects on developing rains. kids using thc because of the legalization of these products and the retraction of any stigma associated with the use of these products. were are valid reasons thought to do that from a public policy standpoint. that conversation should be separate from legalization. host: do you think marijuana should be decriminalized nationally? guest: i think we ought to look at decriminalizing it. people are arrested for possession of marijuana and face of other in excess

sentences for crimes that are more serious. that is a discussion around decriminalization. host: is that a discussion you had with the white house? guest: no. my domain was largely public health. the conversation was around legalization. you saw states moving to decriminalize these products or legalize these products in ways that were making them thc accessible to use. i do think ultimately we will have to have a federal reckoning around these questions because you see so many states moving forward with these laws, making thc available to young people and making it available too widely. we will want to have a federal regime that standardizes it and

puts in place more stringent safeguards around keeping these products out of the hands of kids, where you have the biggest concerns around long-term implications of thc use. a couple of are political cycles away from doing that. this is not a partisan political issue. it will take the federal government more time to catch up with what's going on. host: laura uses cbd, rockville, maryland. good morning. guest: i had a hysterectomy -- caller: i had a hysterectomy in april. after the second day, i was released. i dumped the vicodin and used cbd and marijuana for pain. question,re is no i've heard from patients in my former role and i got a lot of

emails after the washington post op-ed deriving therapeutic benefit. patientse, it is suffering from painful conditions. i don't discount those stories. when patients tell me things in terms of how they experience certain medications, i believe the patient's. it's not clear whether it was the cbd or other things. that's part of the problem. is notng sold online regulated. there are other substances in it. host: i wonder how surprised you are by this column. kevin murphy, the ceo of a large cannabis operator, this was his column in "forbes." "for cbd, self-regulation is best." he writes "there will be inherent checks and balances to

ensure safety and quality and i believe wall street will have much to do with forcing that issue. smart investors don't want to put their money into companies that overpromise and under deliver on cbd." guest: i'm not sure i rely on wall street to be a public health regulator, quite frankly. it's probably true that rep beetle investors aren't going to invest in companies that are making absurd and illegal claims -- reputable investors aren't going to invest in companies that are making absurd and illegal claims. i would and always put faith and due diligence to do all the things a public health regular would do, certainly.

the questions you need to ask though beyond -- go beyond the things this writer talked about. you want to make sure there's evidence demonstrating if you're making claims around it, people will deride that benefit. say it can treat if itmer's or cancer, doesn't deliver those benefits, it isn't just that the patient is not going to get the benefits they hoped for, they might forgo other therapies that are proven to deliver those benefits. if you're a cancer patient and you have one shot at potential potentially-- treating or curing your cancer and you believe cbd will be effective for that purpose, you might forgo that effective therapy. that is a concern that was touched on by the enforcement

actions we took. host: the fda sent a warning letter to the company, purel eaf, out of wake field, massachusetts. they said cbd is effective in treating parkinson's. guest: there's a lot of companies making claims like that. congress, ibefore talked about over the line claims. those, in my view, are over the line claims. there is no evidence to suggest cbd shrinks tumors. i can confidently say there never will be. if you are claiming cbd can help in the treatment of seizures or a neuromuscular element, there is evidence to suggest it may be effective for those purposes. when companies are making these claims where there is no evidence suggesting any medical benefit at all, that's where we

need to step in and shut that down. host: dave in florida. a cbd user. good morning. caller: good morning. my achingd for bones. the doctor said fda is the guard dog for us, but i disagree. up to bewed round sprayed on wheat at harvest time and we know what that causes, problems with your gut bacteria, non-hodgkin's lymphoma. one deregulated monsanto's roundup. now, they are getting sued. i've been following this for a long time. had a doctor from roundupoing research on

and another doctor from germany showed the negative effects of killing gut bacteria and people -- in people. guest: the caller brings up two questions. ofst, the regulation roundup. the question of whether or not round up into food in trace amounts -- a lot of that research has been done by the fda. there is some evidence to suggest that in certain foods, you see certain trace levels of the weed killer. does that have a human effect? the caller talks about effects on the gut micro biome. this questions around whether or not it could have longer-term effects, whether or not roundup is associated with non-logic and

-- non-hodgkin's lymphoma. the actual regulation and questions around the safety of roundup as a product are regulations that epa administers. concerns are around the food itself. host: diane, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. and i have ad user regulatory background with animal drugs. i use cbd oil. i want to first say one fluid ounce costs $100. that's evenulated going through the process of regulation as a food, it will make it cost prohibitive, in my opinion. is what i consider

a model for good labeling. the labeling is done with everything -- lot number, expiration date, fullest of ingredients -- full list of ingredients, listed as a dietary supplement, no drug claims, all the things you would normally want to see on something like this, except for one thing. manufactured for this particular company. it gives that address. that is manufactured for. my biggest concern, who made this? i would be most concerned about reputable, notng coming in from some foreign where there is no

regulation at all. host: thank for the question. all dietary supplements are subject to good manufacturing requirements. i have no reason to believe it is not true, but we don't know. that is the point of having a regulatory process. what is the purity, what is the potency? what are the ingredients? is it manufactured in the proper environment? the label can say that. right now, there's nobody looking into make sure what's on the label is truthful and not

misleading. , the dr. scott gottlieb 23rd commissioner of the fda, currently a fellow at the american enterprise institute. we appreciate your time. up next, a discussion on red flag laws in this country. we will be joined by ron honberg from the national alliance on mental illness. later, a discussion with mark goldberg, host of "the foreign " from the global dispatch. ♪

>> c-span has live coverage of the 2020 presidential candidates at the iowa state fair starting thursday at 1:45 p.m. eastern with montana governor steve bullock, followed by former vice president joe biden. castro and beto o'rourke. governor jay inslee, senator, harris, senator amy klobuchar, senator kirsten gillibrand, senator elizabeth warren and senator cory booker -- senator la harris kamala harris. using thee on the go free c-span radio app. >> sunday night on q&a --

>> we were taken out of the hall in front of this mob of angry people. talks aboutinger being physically attacked in 2017 after an appearance by author charles murray on campus. >> at the end of your discussion, you left that room and went where and what happened? >> i don't really remember. much of it. i couldn't tell you what door we went out. hallre taken out of the and confronted this mob of angry people, some of whom were in masks. they were shoving and jostling. their target was charles murray. q&a.nday night on c-span's >> "washington journal" continues. host: ron honberg is a policy advisor for the national

alliance on mental illness. he testified before congress on the issue of red flag laws and risk factors for violence. start by explaining what red flag laws are and how they work. guest: red flag laws, we refer to them as risk protection orders or gun violence restraining orders. they are civil orders, not criminal, which are based on risk. they basically create mechanisms for family members or law enforcement officers depending upon how the law is written to move quickly and get firearms out of the hands of people who are identified as having risk of and showing violence. host: there is not currently a national red flag law. guest: that is correct. 17 states have authorized them under careful circumstances. there is no national law.

host: why is there no national law? guest: these procedures require local implementation. they fall within the purview of state law. the federal government could play a role in encouraging them or providing financial incentives to states to implement them. that is under consideration right now. host: that's the effort by senator lindsey graham and richard blumenthal. president trump referred to this effort. what do we know about what's going to be in that legislation or proposal they are coming up with? guest: i have not seen a copy of the draft bill yet. i cannot speak about the specifics. there'souraging that some bipartisan agreement on , whichrelated to guns tend to divide congress.

the devil when it comes to legislation is always in the details. we are certainly hoping at nami that they don't link these laws specifically to mental illness. there are a lot of risk factors other than mental illness. some ofnest with you, the rhetoric we've heard -- basicallyluded diagnosing the shooters in el paso and dayton and in previous mass shootings as well, diagnosing the shooters as having mental illness with no information supporting that. it's not helpful. it is harmful. the last thing we want to do is create further disincentives for people who may be experiencing mental health challenges. there are a lot of risk factors. mental illness is a minor risk factor for gun violence.

maybe more of a risk factor for suicide. host: what evidence is there that red flag laws work? guest: they are early in their implementation. there's only been one definitive study in connecticut. that study has shown that they've been very helpful in reducing suicides. impactta about what they've had in reducing homicides. host: the research in connecticut and indiana found for every 10-20 confiscations under the law, there was one fewer death than otherwise expected. that's from timothy williams in "the new york times today." we are talking about red flag laws in this half-hour of "washington journal." republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000.

independents, 202-748-8002. ron honberg is our guest this morning, a senior policy advisor at the national alliance on mental illness. i want to come back to something you said about how mental illness is being talked about in the wake of mass shootings. hear afterts when we these shootings that nobody in their right mind would do something like this -- what is your reaction to that kind of statement? guest: i understand that. extreme hatred and bigotry is not a mental illness. are medicalsses conditions, they are diagnosable. schizophrenia went untreated may include delusions and hallucinations and paranoia. there have been some mass shootings linked with severe mental illness.

aurora, the movie theater shooting. tucson involving congresswoman giffords. most of them, there have not been indications that the individuals were delusional at the time of the shooting. in el paso, consumed with hatred, consumed with bigotry and racial hatred -- that is not a mental illness. of overwhelming majority those with mental illness in this country are trying to overcome the symptoms -- it is hard for people to access treatment. there are oftentimes negative consequences associated with acknowledging mental health needs. associating this with violence is harmful. host: is that what's been happening this week? guest: we wouldn't do that with

any other medical condition. host: alan out of alabama. a republican. good morning. is the red flag law for firearms only? guest: yes, and for ammunition as well. on thely depends particular state. they really get the firearms and ammunition. host: you think it should include other things? caller: why just firearms? the mental health of sos country was deregulated people can't get the help they used to. in the 1960's and 1970's, we never had this problem until the government stepped in and messed it up. why are we being penalized for having to fix our government's

mess up? illnessates of mental do not fluctuate, they do not vary across country, they do not vary from the u.s. to the european countries to asia or we see higheryet, levels of firearm violence in this country than other countries. i don't think it's the mental illness causing it. correct thatutely it's very difficult to get mental health care. thatr as your suggestions red flag laws should apply to other devices, knives, et cetera, your point is well taken . they want to be very careful about how they implement these laws. they want to study them to make sure they work. hence, they are starting with firearms and ammunition. host: 17 states have red flag laws. take us through the most

expansive red flag law estate has and a more pointed version of that. guest: all the laws have two components to them. parte orders -- if you identify the person constituting imminent risk, you can move quickly to remove the firearms and then there's a requirement that there be a hearing after the fact to make sure we haven't violated that person's rights. the second part, the hearings in situations where there's not an involvesorder, that the right to testify, providing evidence for why the gun should not be removed. the laws require careful review so that if a person believes

--t these are temporary these are temporary orders, if -- theht is restored person has a right to review after-the-fact to have their guns restored. allowf the state laws these orders to last more than the year without a further hearing. host: tom out of california. a democrat. california one of the states with red flag laws on the books. go ahead. -- we: here's the thing already have a 5150 law. all that'sg law, going to do is send more mental health people into hiding. law,e have a red flag someone goes in for mental

health and gets called out, that's one thing. haveabout the people that firearms that are not registered? you can go into a mental health facility on a 5150 and they ask you if you have any firearms. tell them no. how are you going to prove that they do have firearms if they are not registered firearms? guest: let me try to address the different points. 5150 refers to california's civil commitment law. when someone with a mental illness is determined to be dangerous, you can commit them to a mental health treatment inpatient facility or on an outpatient basis. that is very different from what extremed flag laws are, risk protection laws are.

it's important that we not confuse one with the other. most peoplerlier, who constitute risks of gun violence to self or others do not have mental illnesses. here are the risk factors that have been identified. -basedng an evidenced approach -- a past history of violence is a big predictor. alcohol and substance abuse have been shown to be predictors. violence.of domestic conviction for a violent crime in the past. in some cases, untreated symptoms of paranoia, untreated delusions and hallucinations can increase the risk of violence.

most of these people will not act violently, but there is a slightly increased risk. it's important that people do not assume these red flag laws are focused on people with mental illness. there's no need to identify mental illness in these laws. it's about reducing risk for whatever reason. entrees.orgful map -- on trace.org of states with red flag laws. north carolina is more of an aange color, a state that has red flag law bill proposed. calling from north carolina, joseph, independent. good morning. caller: i would just like to say one persons usually with mental illness in every family.

you can keep the mentally ill from getting that, but you can't in a family happens with a legal gun holder and someone else who has a mental illness -- these shooters are being hypnotized by video games. there's a book written in 2016 that shows the powerful effect of these video games. the university of washington used virtual reality to take away the pain from burn victims when oxycontin doesn't work k. why isn't anybody addressing these violent video games that isolate people and get them into this netherworld that ends up in gun violence?

they think they are playing a game, pushing a button. guest: first of all, you've made an important point that mental illness is much more common than most people realize. about one in five americans are affected by mental health conditions. most people with mental illnesses are not violent at all. more often, they are frankly the victims of violence than the perpetrators of violence. as far as the video games, you're getting me into an area where i don't have expertise -- i haven't seen studies linking video games with gun violence, but i know that is a topic that has been discussed a great deal in the aftermath of these tragedies. host: richland, indiana. republican. good morning. caller: good morning.

coworkers, wef my have been discussing these mass murderers or murder-suicide , three or four of us agree that the democrats are behind all this in some kind of take away our second amendment. guest: thank you. there was a supreme court decision 10-15 years ago where the supreme court held that people have a second amendment right to possess firearms. that decision said clearly that not unlimited and

can be restricted based on risk factors. not all people have a right to firearms depending on factors can they responsibly own guns and things like that. i don't see this -- i don't agree that this is an effort to restrict peoples second amended rights. we need to recognize the red flag laws are only a limited solution, may be a way to protect people from harming themselves in particular, that might be the most important it is not a justification or reason to deflect attention from the broader issues being discussed, including background checks or the types of weapons that people currently have access to. host: 10 minutes left with ron honberg from the national

alliance on mental illness. caller during our first segment brought up -- one of the first things president was ease restrictions on the mentally ill getting guns. guest: i know that issue quite well. administration, the obama administration, issued rules shortly before they left office that would have required social security administration to report to the fbi, which maintains the national background check system, the names of all people who had been help in managing their benefits. my organization and many disability organizations objected to that.

we have consistently at nami said if we are going to impose restrictions on a discrete group of people, namely people with mental illnesses, it should be based on predictors of violence. it gets back to what i was talking about earlier. these approaches have to be evidence-based. from anposal administration that was trying hard to do the right thing did not focus on risk factors. withdrawn byon was the trump administration when they assumed office, but we frankly agreed with that anision because it was not evidence-based approach. host: ohio. whoer: i have a daughter does suffer from depression. when her medicine ceases to

work, she doesn't get violent but she goes to bed and sleeps for days and weeks at a time. paso andppening in el here in dayton, which is not far from where i live, has nothing to do with mental and this. it has to do with racism and you hate people because of the color of their skin. whips the fire and the flames are getting higher. it's time that we americans stand for what we say we stand for. you can't hate somebody because of the color of their skin. i'm a born again christian, i teach sunday school, we used to sing a song years ago about god created all children and we love them all the same.

i cannot say in the united -- that we'm 71 now are any farther down the racist road then we were when i was a child. we have a person who is an authority -- this could be nipped in the bud today if he would just say this has to end, i will stop fanning the flames by saying racist epitaphs like mexicans are rapists and drug dealers. they are just people wanting to work and support their families. host: catherine in ohio. guest: thank you, kathryn. the point you made in the --inning about your daughter i'm certainly hoping for the best for your daughter. thank you for being such a strong supporter of her. that is so important.

we are talking about medical conditions like all others. these kinds ofke generalizations about people cancer,rt disease, stroke victims, but we do with mental illness. we have a long history of equating serious mental illness with violence. the overwhelming majority are not violent. we need to stop saying this particularly if our goal is to improve access to mental health care. host: is that happening in this country? what is happening with federal funding to help provide that access? guest: i don't think we've been moving in a positive direction. there have been some increases in funding for discrete programs and for research. that's been a good thing. the most important source of funding for mental health services is medicaid.

we continue to hear proposals to restrict medicaid in states. that would impact negatively people with mental illnesses people. many of whom rely on medicaid to have access to services and because of medicaid can recover and work and become productive citizens. we really need to look at the big picture. host: how involved were you with expanding medicaid through the affordable care act? guest: we strongly supported expanding medicaid and we have continued to fight for access to medicaid including being involved in lawsuits. the challenge to proposals in restricting medicaid and we will fight hard for medicaid because it is finally important. host: joe in south dakota, independent. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you. can you do a blood test to see

if you are mentally ill? who is to determine who is mentally ill? the red flag laws will create trouble. and as far as anybody being determined mentally ill or challenged, a non-attributed quote, if all the thoughts of anyone person could be revealed, they would deserve hanging 10 times over. i will hang up and listen. host: two points you made. with regard to the blood test regarding mental illness, we cannot take one, the brain is a complicated organ of the body and we cannot do a blood test to determine alzheimer's disease or other conditions that impact the brain. we make diagnoses based on observations of individuals over

time. we can now diagnose serious mental illnesses with great accuracy comparable to other health conditions. about the issue jeopardy created by the red flag laws. i want to get back to the point i made earlier. there are extreme risk protection orders based on risk factors and not laws about mental illness. there may be some people with mental illnesses who are impacted by the majority of people who pose risks do not have mental illnesses. only about 4% of all the lights -- violence in this country is attributable to mental illness and with gun violence it is even less. most people do not know this but there are twice as many gun deaths that are suicides and homicides -- than homicides. if we could somehow identify

everyone with a mental illness and take away firearms from them , we would not be appreciably reducing rates of homicide. host: what percentage of suicides are people with diagnosed mental illnesses? guest: there have been studies, the cdc has looked at this, and others and the estimates are between 50% and 60%. suicides, they constitute the second-highest of deaths among people between 16-24. although not all people, when they attempt to take their lives, use guns, when a person does use a gun more often than the use of the time the gun results in the death and in other cases serious disability. to the extent we're talking about -- we are having this

debate but we should look at suicides. another point is suicides this reportedly -- disproportionately affect veterans with 20 better and per day taking their lives, many with guns -- 20 veterans per day taking their lives, many with guns. host: the free service you offer 24 hours a day. operated by trained volunteers at nomi. richard, republican, virginia. caller: i have to get my train of thought back. ohio that killed all of those people, her girlfriend i mean, his girlfriend knew he was mentally unstable and did not say anything.

did not call anybody. we need a hotline people can call if they think it is one of the relatives or their brother or sister or mother or father or whoever. if they are unstable and changing. if you have a hotline, people could check those people out before they did something terrible. richard, first of all, most people who experience ,ental health issues are not you know, going to engage in violence. i know i have said this a few times before. the reason we should be concerned about helping people with mental health conditions is

because we want to help people experiencing health problems, we want to reduce the symptoms. there are hotlines, suicide prevention hotlines, many, john gave the nami helpline number. it is a way to link people with resources in their local communities but many local nami affiliates, we have 600 state and local affiliates throughout the country, also have health lines. -- help lines. people should be aware of compassion assistance. host: the national suicide prevention number. it is a 24 hour service as well. ronald honberg's policy advisor at nami. next, podcast we continues as we are joined by mark leon goldberg

, host of the foreign policy podcast, global dispatches. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years c-span has had footage of congress, the white , and, the supreme court public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. rated by cable in 1979 c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider -- brought to you by cable in 1979 c-span has -- is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. >> c-span has live coverage of the 2020 presidential candidates

at the iowa state fair starting thursday at 1:45 p.m. eastern with montana governor steve bullock followed by former vice president joe biden appeared on friday, live at 10:00 a.m. eastern with hooley and castro and later former congressman and o'rourke. -- beto o rourke. senator harris, kiersten gillibrand, elizabeth moran, and cory booker -- elizabeth wharton , and cory booker. watch anytime online at c-span.org or listen live from wherever you are on the go using the free c-span radio app. journal"ngton continues. ont: c-span podcast week, monday joined by larry o'connor

the host of the washington politicss examining podcast. on thursday we will be joined by irewalt.rewall -- st today joined by mark leon who has arom denver podcast that focuses on undercover global issues and trends of the day. undercover mean by issues and how do you find them? guest: these are ideas or trends or events or sometimes even individuals that exist around the world who are doing interesting things, who are of global consequence, but do not typically get the kind of in-depth analysis and coverage from our conventional media outlets. i will find a journalist or think tank expert or a diplomat

or government official deeply engaged on some issue of global consequence and have a 25 or 30 minute conversation with them that examines all angles of that issue. to bring the specific issue to a broader foreign-policy and broader podcast listening audience. host: give us an example of some of your recent issues you have uncovered. guest: the most recent episode i hosted is a good example of what my mission is with the podcast. this was an interview with an a -- about ahe ngo draft in the corner of africa which includes parts of somalia, kenya, ethiopia currently experiencing a drought affecting about 15 million people. this area is prone to drought but what caught my attention when trying to pick up whether to do an episode around this

issue was data i saw about the consequences of this drought and how that data seems to match a similar situation unfolding in 2011 in which a similar drought led to an absolutely devastating famine that killed about 260,000 people. this was the first famine of the 21st century. episodeght to do an explaining to people the situation, the drought situation happening now in the court of africa is bearing a lot of the intentionith to give people an early warning that unless we act and listen to the suggestions of the person i interviewed from oxfam, perhaps we may be descending into this awful situation in which 200,000 people made eye of famine. host: -- may die of famine. host: who are your listeners and

what do you know about them? guest: the listeners of my show our geographically diverse. it is a function of the content i put out. cap are in the united states and half are from the rest -- half are from the united states and half from the rest of the world, from larger english-speaking countries like united kingdom, canada, australia. interesting about my part just is i have had a download from nearly every single country on earth, except north korea. it probably has to do with their firewalls. it is a widely listen to show with a broad geographic and attrition. -- penetration. host: how many downloads are we talking about? guest: it mid august we will have 2 million downloads all time. host: you have said on your

podcast that you seek to have a conversation, accessible conversation about foreign-policy that viewers will not get anywhere else. how do you think most podcasts today cover foreign-policy? guest: i think most podcasts are very much news driven. i have some news on global dispatch but most is driven by the news which oftentimes is driven by what president trump says or does. most podcasts are chasing that headline. i think perhaps what distinguishes mine is i tried to take a step back from the day-to-day rumble of the news and try to offer listeners some issuesund and context to they might not read on the front page of the new york times or washington post. host: podcast week on the washington journal and today we speak with mark leon goldberg host of global dispatch.

to join the conversation, republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats it is 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. how did you get into podcasting? guest: i have been writing on a blogernet since 2004, about the united nations and global affairs. i have been writing on twitter and social media. five or six years ago i was thinking to myself, i love what i was doing but the content i was writing was as i just ewscribed, news paid -- nred pegged, and i wanted to give the issues i was interested in a longer shelf life and make them interesting years down the line.

at the time i left podcasting -- i love podcasting as a medium and thought to take this interest of mine, these big global issues that have been conversations with them but not make them pegged to the day-to-day new cycle. michigan, independent, you are up first. caller: good day. is,question i have for mark how does he intend to make sure effect?gets the desired issueart of a global coverage guy. there is a genocide in bri , where wewest africa have more than 13 dozen people killed and 9000 homes burned and 1.5 million people displaced,

,ore than 200,000 in nigeria and continuous killing every day. you can go to and you would not believe what has happened and the world is silent. mark, how do you get these issues on the table? guest: great question. the situation to which you refer, the persecution of anglophones in camera from -- -- in cameron is something i have covered over the last couple of years and most recently a couple weeks ago i had a senior official, a former top united nations official, and now head of a large international relief organization called the norwegian refugee council on the show to discuss what you are talking about.

the persecution of anglophones and the conflict in the anglophone region of cameroon. one thing from the confirmation -- conversation sticks out, that conflict has displaced several hundred thousand people and led to over one million children who are out of school, not able to attend school because of this conflict. it is issues like the ones you identified i want to bring to a larger audience. issues that animate, the cameroon diaspora, they have broader global significance and i see it as my mission to bring those stories that may resonate among our community but are of importance to a broader global community and bring that to a broader foreign-policy audience. host: may 8 this year, a crisis in cameron was broadcast.

if viewers want to listen to your podcast, where can they go? guest: go to global dispatch's podcast website or if you have an iphone you can open up your apple podcast out and search for global dispatch, world news that matters. host: elizabeth in virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i am an intern in a nonprofit organization where we work to onocus u.s. foreign-policy foreign aid and oversees development and assistance. could you talk a little bit about the benefits to u.s. national security and possible economic benefits of doing just that, we focusing our foreign-policy on aid? guest: people do not realize this but foreign aid constitutes about 1% of the total u.s.

budget. oftentimes there are surveys that go out that asked people what percentage of foreign aid do you think is of the u.s. budget. they say about 20%. it is about 1% in fact. that one person is leveraged tremendously around the world. that 1% has contributed to a significant global design -- , it is on thes retreat in most places around the world in large part because of the u.s. foreign assistance. benefit the soft power you get from sending aid stamped with the usaid seal from the american people, it is stamped on every food aid that goes around the world. it is a reflection of american values when they receive aid, when hospitals are built and staff salaries are paid for to

prevent the kind of global goodngency, ebola is a example with an outbreak now in parts of the democratic republic of congo. the idea foreign aid is to help people in the affected regions take care of that problem for themselves by giving them expertise and funding and food and shelter. in part this is so ebola does not spread elsewhere and affect us here at home. there is a national security argument to be made. the most compelling argument is it is the right thing to do. host: eastpointe, kentucky, danielle, independent. good morning. are you with us? we will go to harry in pennsylvania, republican. good morning. , good: hello, c-span morning and thank you for the opportunity to call in. good morning, mark. it is excellent to hear your

vision for what is important. i want to ask you a question about the united states having command,relatively new -con,a whoave a new general has taken the helm. what are ways in which you see, other than as getting food and medicine in the area, can we provide stability for the continent of africa? of those the prayers going through suffering? guest: it is important to disaggregate the continent of africa to constituent countries because there is a vast diversity among that gigantic continent. ago, in ghana a few weeks

a stable, multiparty democracy that is one of the best allies to america in the region. it is a very functioning and well governed country. poor buttainly core -- does not have the instability of other places like south sudan. instability like ali, anudan or m intervention is overlooked by american media and american observers, that is the united nations peacekeeping. the most peacekeeping missions around the world are in africa. very few if any american soldiers serve in these missions. but they are providing important security guarantees to countries and protecting civilians who have been displaced by violence.

recently a good example is liberia. the peacekeeping mission of liberia closed up shop because after 15 years peacekeepers had successfully fulfill their mission. thousands of peacekeepers from inund the world had deployed liberia to create conditions for peace and create the security conditions and which elections could be held. change in power after the elections and everything was stable and the peacekeepers left. a good example of how international support can be leveraged to help bring peace and help africans themselves bring peace and stability to their own countries and communities. host: the episodes on your podcast are about 30 minutes. why is that a good length of time for the discussions you are trying to have? guest: i could talk about this stuff for hours. i would love to chat for hours and hours but i want to be

respectful of my listeners time. most people consume podcasts while either on a commute or a performing -- or while performing chores. someone was training for a marathon listening to the show and that boggles my mind. in general i want to get to the essence of an issue and provide the necessary context required to understand a global issue, not only in the moment but understand that, as they unfold in the coming weeks and months, and so 25 minutes, 30 minutes is a good sweet spot for that kind of context and analysis that i am seeking to draw out of the people aim. the -- people i interview. people send you anecdotes about how the podcast has impacted them. what is one that sticks out to you? guest: i hear from listeners all

the time. podcasting that is so profound that i only got after doing this for a while is how intimate a medium it is. there is something profoundly intimate about listening to someone speak right in your ears , you feel you get to know them and develop a deep and profound connection and regard with your audience to the point where they and free and compelled without problem to email you and ask you questions. , good example of this is people asking me questions about career, a young professional in foreign-policy, i hear questions about career and career choices. saying theemailed me podcast inspired them to do a career shift and joined the u.s. foreign service. i heard this person recently had joined and was going on his

first assignment overseas. he met me -- he emailed me years ago telling me the show inspired him to quit his day job and take the foreign service exam and do it. me andedback moves inspires me to keep doing what i am doing. host: 30 minutes left with mark goldberg. we are talking about his podcast on "washington journal." phone lines open for republicans, democrats come independents. democrat from seattle. good morning. caller: the most important aspect of foreign affairs issues are tensions in the middle east and our relationship with russia and china, and undermining the wars.

iran has a nuclear arsenal and war can to stabilize the middle east and collapse international economies. is it rational to increase tension with iran? arguments damage our reputation in the world. saying thehe world united states cannot be trusted. host: you bring up a lot of issues. where do you want to go? guest: part of the podcast i interview foreign leaders and they say the same thing as the caller from seattle. there is an incoherent aspect of u.s. foreign-policy now that makes the united states and unpredictable actor in global

affairs. that is having profound consequences in every region around the world. example.a good donald trump signaled early on that he would pull out of it, the iran nuclear deal, but there were ways of pulling out without scuttling the deal entirely. administratione is intent on scuttling the deal and the challenge is the deal was working. it was performing its intended functions in terms of keeping the iran nuclear ambitions at bay and now we see a quick and profound unraveling of that feel that could lead to iran acquiring nuclear weapons. that is profoundly unsettling. that is one example of many in which the trump administration

has abrogated international deals that the united states had previously been a part of another example where the actions and decisions and statements and words of the president himself is making the united states a less reliable actor in global affairs. 1 on your podcast with the headline of the episode , what is next between the united states and iran? global dispatch is where you can find a link. new york city, republican, you are next. caller: good morning and thank you for having me. , imagine going to say if we could possibly have a proper negotiation with iran. the withdrawal from the nuclear deal, selling millions of dollars of weapons to saudi

--bia, which has brought they kill women like el paso. and iraq, syria, yemen. your comment? guest: my heart goes out to the situation in yemen. something that for years was a global tragedy, a profound tragedy existing under the radar. being moved by statements like yours is why i sought to do what i can to shine a spotlight early on that tragedy in yemen. a tragedy that persists to this day. your broader point about u.s. arms sales to yemen and saudi

arabia, which they have used to kill women and children and bomb hospitals, perhaps to liberally in yemen -- perhaps deliberately in yemen is important and worth pointing out that congress for years, even under the obama administration, sought restrictions on arms sales to saudi arabia to guarantee they would not be used to these inhumane ends in yemen. senator chris murphy was on the decrying ans ago arms sale being pushed through the senate to saudi arabia because their use of those weapons in yemen were so apparently inhumane. last week we saw the u.s. congress and senate seeking to restrict those arms sales. they passed it this time but this time the president vetoed

that bill and the arms sales will still go through, sadly. host: al in pennsylvania come independent. -- in pennsylvania, independent. caller: hello. just a minute. i am wondering if the individual making comments has looked at the situation in south africa where there is government inspired persecution of caucasians? driving quite farmers off their land and killing of -- white farmers off their land and killing off whites. guest: i have not. host: monti, republican, washington. caller: as far as the united nations, i was military, i did 18 years in the u.s. military, spent most of my time in europe.

we were basically run out of europe by what you are talking about. hello? host: finish your comment. caller: we were basically run out of europe and it has expanded every year, the united nations did nothing about it but make it worse. by not following through on things we paid them to do. host: mark goldberg? referringhaps you are to the balkan conflicts of the early mid 1990's when u.n. peacekeeping fail to prevent a massacre, the 24th anniversary was this past summer. i would say that in the past 25 years, or 24 years since that occurrence, there has been some profound and real significant n. peacekeeping to

the point where today he do not see those kinds of situations replicated. in fact, south sudan is a good example. today what they call civilian protection, the idea that peacekeepers are there to prevent civilians from being harmed by armed groups is a central and core tenant of the united nations peacekeeping where it was not in 1995 when dudutch peacekeepers let serbian h a town where sever need they conducted their massacre. that is a change in united nations peacekeeping. host: to the theme of undercovered global issues, how do luxury cars get into north korea and what can u.s. policymakers learn from that? guest: i love this story. it was reported by the "new york

times" that identified using interesting visual and satellite data, and partnering with a research organization that compiles data able to track two mercedes s-3600, million-dollar cars, from the manufacture in germany to the port of rotterdam the racer curious route in asia to the pyongyang. these are luxury cars. luxury goods are banned under united nations sanctions. but if these goods are banned, how was north korea able to get around those sanctions to get the high-end cars into kim jong-un's fleet? a reporter at the new york times talked me through his reporting and added context do it.

essentially it was a function of the circuitous route that the shipping containers took that brought these luxury cars to pyongyang. -- whaterested the interested me more broadly was a i like to a point make about sanctions, they are only as strong as the ability and willingness of governments to enforce them. what you saw with this situation with the luxury cars in north korea was that there were systemic failures among national governments. at one point these cars were in south korea, a country that would want to enforce sanctions against north korea. , another also in japan country that would want to enforce sanctions against north korea but yet they slipped through. examining how these sanctions spoke to a broader

point about the challenges of international sanctions more broadly. host: the story from july 16 in the new york times, how the north korean leader gets his luxury cars. jenna, westwood, new jersey, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. what do you think about the proposed cuts to the international affairs budget from the trump administration especially with the recent ebola outbreak and similar issues? you may be referring to this story that broke yesterday complicated -- a budget maneuver the office of management and budget in the white house is seeking to place a hold on funding in the international affairs budget that has been appropriated by congress which has not yet been spent by usaid or the state department. what the administration is

seeking to do -- what the white house is seeking to do because there is some tension within the administration on this, what the white house is seeking to do is prevent those funds from being spent. it seems as if usaid and perhaps the state department wants those funds to be spent and congress mandated they be spent because they hold the purse strings. it is a reflection i think of the perhaps lower priority that the white house or certain elements of the white house, perhaps the office of management and budget put on things like foreign assistance, foreign aid, global health intervention, spreading.ebola from or making sure that food assistance reaches the correct

people. it is competing priorities in the administration with this recent maneuver. host: 20 minutes left with mark goldberg if you want to talk about foreign policy and his podcast. 202-748-8001 for republicans. . --748-8000, 202-748-8000 democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. how do you make money? is fundedh of my work through private philanthropy and the podcast has listener support, that is an important function. think of it as npr, the public radio model. .he podcast is mission driven we do not chase the headlines and as a function of that the audience is not huge and broad

and you will not bring in giant advertising dollars to listener support is critical. we get some advertising as well, mostly among people or groups or organizations that seek to reach an audience of globally curious people and global affairs professionals who listen to the show. those are the key mechanisms, audience support, philanthropy, and some philanthropy. host: what is patrion? guest: a platform in which content creators can connect with content -- consumers of page,ontent, so my listeners can make monthly contributions to the show and through that platform they are given rewards and bonuses, extra episodes i will publish just for

listeners of the show. i will send them some swag, maybe a sticker. it is for people who want extra or who have a philanthropic desire to support the mission of the show, that is the platform they can use to support the show. host: how long does it take you to please 130 minute podcast -- one 30 minute podcast? guest: it depends on how much knowledge i have coming into the subject matters with. i have built up an expertise with united nations and it does not require as much pre-interview preparation by myself. i know what i want to get out of the guests i'm interviewing and have the narrative arc sketched out in my head. there are other issues perhaps not known to me so much that

require more preparation on my part. for example, an episode last year on snakebites, a global health hazard that no one talks about but getting bitten by a snake kills nearly as many people as needles -- measles does around the world and a function of mostly poverty with people not having shoes when they walk outside in a snake infested area or the pharmaceutical industry not wanting to invest in anti-venom to purchaseoo poor them. and required me to research identifying the right person to talk to. that can take a bit longer. postproduction, not very long, .ome light editing by myself i like to keep the entirety of the conversation to preserve the spontaneity, keep it interesting

for listeners so i only do light editing. it can range from a few hours to several hours per episode. host: frank in seattle, washington, a republican. caller: good morning, c-span. mentioneddience tensions with iran. i disagree. with tooe are acting much kindness with iran and we should be more consistent. people got upset when president trump said we should destroy the country, iran is an enemy. they are the only country that istdown -- and laugh that when we did nothing in return.

they are public is showing us their precision guided missiles. you are criticizing sanctions. i could not understand how you could be so weak when it comes to iran. host: i will give you a chance to respond. guest: i think one important thing the iran nuclear deal did iran's nuclear program from the other basket of challenges the united states has ,ith iran around the world whether their support for proximal issues, their spread -- proxy militias, the most existential threat to our allies in europe and perhaps to the united states off the table. the iran nuclear deal successfully put a limit and a cap and monitored iran's nuclear

program so the other challenges the united states and the rest of the world has with iran candidate within a more systematic fashion. it is just easier to deal with a country when they do not have nuclear weapons. look at north korea. we have no leverage over north korea right now because they have nuclear weapons. the iran nuclear deal was a success and was important because it was able to set aside iran's nuclear ambitions from the other host of issues we have with iran. to your point about the u.s. sanctions andace a travel ban on iran's foreign minister, the one who negotiated the nuclear deal with john kerry and the obama administration. the problem with the move to me is that it effectively cuts off negotiation. you are now sanctioning the one

person with whom you would be doing the negotiating. the idea -- the trump administration's approach to iran is dead they did not like the nuclear deal, it only cover the nuclear deal, the trap administration wants a new deal to cover everything. administration wants a new deal to cover everything but they have no one to negotiate with, a policy leading us to perhaps violent confrontation which could be deeply and horrifically bad for both countries. host: marilyn, democrat, jude. caller: i grew up in central africa, cameroon. why is it taking so long for the united nations to intervene in the civil war or the conflict in cameron? you have soldiers dying from the government and separatist dying and civilians dying. i grew up knowing prevention is

always better than the cure. why is the united nations and america allowing this were to continue -- war to continue? guest: to answer your question about the united nations, there have not been any discussions of armed intervention, of peacekeepers intervening in the united nations. what you are seeing right now is growing momentum within the united nations to do precisely as you said, send more high-level officials to cameron to try to facilitate a dialogue between the government and leaders of the anglophone community persecuted. there has been an increase in humanitarian assistance but there has not been a meeting of the security council that resulted in any legally binding resolution on cameroon.

there has been other meetings on the security council about cameroon but none with legally binding, you the cameroon government or leaders of the anglophone timidity must come together to discuss these issues and resolve your issues. what drivesimes events at the security council are the priorities of the five permanent members, the united states, france, u.k., russia, china. cameroon is unfortunately not a priority of those countries. i think the lack of intervention or the lack of anything you see from the u.s. is more or less indifference to what is happening. i am certain there are people at the state department working hard behind the scenes to try to do what they can but you are not seeing any high-level engagement by the secretary of state or

anyone in the white house around this issue because it is -- they are indifferent to it. maryland,en park, robert, republican -- brooklyn park, maryland, robert, republican. tariffe we do not have a on automobiles coming in from china? that was exempt but we need a high terrace on auto the autos coming in because it has devastated the automotive industry in the u.s. havevented the car and we foreign cars with no tariffs. why were they exempt? host: how much do you get into trade policy? guest: i do not know the answer to your question. host: jesse in connecticut, democrat. good morning. caller: i grew up in the shadow of world war ii where the united

nations was seen as one organization that could broker peace among the major powers of the world in a time of devastation. i wonder, mark, how you think lost that place in the world and how you think it may get it back. guest: thanks, jesse. i do not know if it has fully lost that place in the world. it is important to take a step back and reflect on the events that created the united nations in 1945. of the holocaust and devastation of world war ii and the bombing of hiroshima nagasaki. these global events that occurred that led to the advent of the united nations. it is something to reflect on.

in the years prior to the united nations we had to world wars and year it will be the 75th anniversary of the united nations with no great power conflict that has killed millions and millions of people in the way those conflicts did. laws byated a set of which governments conducted themselves, they did not have to fight war. it is true that in the 1990's in particular when the cold war when jesus and internal -- eased and internal conflicts were robust, rwanda genocide, the united nations was not equipped and moved slowly to reform to intervene internally in the affairs of governments and the affairs of countries that were killing their own citizens. subsequent to that the united nations went through reforms and

brought the idea of humanitarianism and human rights back to the core of what it does. in 2005 it adopted the principle call the responsibility to protect which enables the united nations in certain circumstances to intervene in genocide and mass atrocities happening within the borders of a country as --osed to cross borders here cross borders. important to keep in mind there , the onenited nations that talks and prevents wars, and there are failures and successes of that united nations. there is the unique -- there is the united nations that acts, keeping millions of people alive in yemen now and that is sheltering some 20 million refugees around the world. the united nations providing vaccines to millions of children

under the age of five across africa. the united nations eliminating polio from the face of the earth. it is true that the united nations has certainly and undoubtedly failed to live up to its ideals, it is important we still have those ideals to which we aspire and important to recognize the united nation itself is actively working to uphold the kind of values and moral values we should share. host: five minutes left. question, our- podcasts breaking even and can they be sustained and do they drive readers to newspapers and vice versa, do newspapers drive listeners to podcasts? are soi think podcasts omnipresent these days it is hard to generalize about whether or not day are breaking even.

-- or not they are breaking even . i suspect most are not but some are. they do have this symbiotic relationship with websites and newspapers. a own experience of running print publication online about the united nations and doing global dispatch's podcast is they complement each other in important ways. drives -- the podcast rights readers to the blog and the blog drive listeners to the podcast in ways that are important. i know you have the daily from new york times on yesterday and i would imagine listeners of the daily have been inspired to purchase prescriptions to the new york times because that intimate connection they seem to have with the podcast host. i have to imagine there is a business proposition for having such an in depth daily podcast

produced by the "new york times" i would imagine drives prescriptions. the estimate of over 750,000 podcast available totaling some 30 million episodes as of june 2019. remind people how they can find your podcast. guest: go to our website or if you have an iphone look for global dispatch's world news that matters in the podcast app. if you do not have an iphone, now, android phones do not have an app native to their phone. ago. rolled one out years you can use spotify if you have android to search for the podcast. host: time for a couple more calls before our program ends.

silver spring, maryland, good morning, democrat. caller: good morning. goldbergike to ask mr. , first of all, i am a former federal employee working with d.o.t. the trump administration has devastated the federal workforce and i wanted to ask if he believes the trump administration has the expertise negotiate any deal with the u.n., nato, or any former our allies, and/or iran, and north korea? host: thanks for the question.

caller: your point -- guest: your point is valid. when the trump administration came into office the first secretary of state rex tillerson imposed a harsh restriction on hiring at the state department which led to a real and a love of career employees being forced out the door -- a lot of career employees being forced out the door which led to a generalized lack of expertise and capacity to be firing on all cylinders at once which the united states has to do to negotiate all of these deals and maintain its historic position as a global leader. you saw this unfortunate self-inflicted wound the trump administration imposed on its own ability to project power abroad through diplomacy by imposing hiring freezes at the state department and forcing a

lot of skilled and career nonpolitical people out of their jobs. oregon,m in medford, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. mark, why are we not getting , as longdi arabia for as they have supported the taliban and al qaeda, and all the schools they have in pakistan for their religious beliefs. why doesn't this get more published? why isn't there more information on who is behind it? u.s.-saudi arabia and relationship is a long and theoric one dating back to 1950's, the advent of saudi arabia as a state itself. hasecent years the u.s.

it has been taken to the 11th agree with the obama administration and the united states has sided with saudi arabia in regional proxies and geopolitical disputes they have with iran. this is playing out and devastating effect in yemen. i would have thought that with the murder of the washington post columnist jamal khashoggi and other issues the saudi arabia an government -- saudi arabia and government has pursued, you would have seen this inflection point and this shift. we have not seen it. we are starting to see a shift in public opinion about whether or not it makes sense to willingly go with the crown prince. we have not seen that same

shifts happen in the white house. i mentioned it earlier but you did see a consequential vote in which a large i partisan majority of senators and members of voted to restrict u.s. arms cells to saudi arabia over human rights concerns. thathite house vetoed proposal and despite the bipartisan nature of that vote, the senate did not have enough bipartisan support to override that veto. but i think the fact you are now seeing the senate in this bipartisan coalition forming in moreenate to sort of be forthright with saudi arabia about human rights is an important inflection point itself. to end it there. we appreciate your time this morning.