and left-wing extremism. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning, welcome to washington journal. as the united states enters last third of 2020 we are still looking for a cure or vaccine for the novel coronavirus, it has killed more than 193,000 americans and infected 6 million more with the numbers still going up. but the government and pharmaceutical companies are suggesting that there could be a vaccine, maybe as soon as next month. our question to you this morning is would you get the covid vaccine? we want to know what you think. we have regional lines this morning, if you are in the eastern or central time zones

you will call (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain and pacific time zones you will call (202) 748-8001. you can always text us your .pinion at (202) 748-8003 we are always reading on social media on twitter and facebook. again, there's a lot to talk about with the development of a covid-19 vaccine. the president himself, president trump talked about possible relief during a press conference earlier this week. here's what he said. [video clip] will end the pandemic under operation warp speed, we have pioneered ground breaking therapies, reducing fatality rates from 85% this april. the press does not like to talk

about that. sincetality rate, 85% april. the united states has experienced among the lowest mortality rates cates -- cases in it -- than any country. we are a leader in every way. under my leadership we will produce a vaccine in record time . biden and his very liberal running mate, the most liberal person in congress, is not a confident person in my opinion, would destroy this country and economy. apologize fortely the reckless anti-vaccine .hetoric they're talking about endangering lives ended undermines science and what is we will have this incredible vaccine it's a political rhetoric, that's all it is. job,ve done an incredible

it is be like no one has ever seen. be done in a very short period of time. we could even have it during the month of october. ,o contrary to all of the lies they are political lysing, they will say anything. and it is so dangerous for our country, what they say. but the vaccine will be very safe and effective and delivered very soon. the people will be happy, the people of the world will be happy. many americans seem skeptical about whether they would take a covid-19 vaccine. poll come out earlier that showed 21% of voters nationwide say they would get a vaccine as soon as possible if

one became available at no cost. down from 32% in late july. most would consider it but would wait to see what happened to others before getting one. would you get a covid-19 vaccine? let's go to our phone lines. calling in from southampton, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i absolutely would take it. i'm tired of being a hermit in my home. wait or take it immediately once they started giving it out to the public? caller: i will be standing in line, like a rock concert. host: any concerns or do you thing by the time they make a public it will be safe? caller: i trust in the science behind it, and i trust dr. fauci and dr. birx. host: danny is calling from

farmington, missouri. good morning. caller: good morning. i would take it, if my cardiologist or primary doctor advised me to. host: have you already spoken to and primaryogist doctor about what they think about a vaccine and when they would suggest someone take it? caller: there are so money questions. things,al symptoms and there tunic any questions right now. host: have you spoken to your medical professionals? what are they saying? to my chaplaind at my cardiologist hospital, i asked her how many covid patients they had. she sounded exhausted.

it's about 60 miles south of st. louis or whatever and she said dozens. it's really like a fog or something. first, be skeptical at but i would rely on someone that i know and trust to take it before i take the vaccine. host: how closely are you following the discussion about a vaccine? are you looking for information, are you following it in the news ? news,: oh i follow the there is so much back and forth. know, nobody wants to do anything. pelosi and mcconnell should be ashamed of themselves.

these are american lives for crying out loud. from celeste is calling sharon, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning. no, i would not take it if trump said it was ready but i would've dr. fauci would. -- what if dr. fauci would. we are finding out now that he knew on february 7, but to dr. fauci and anyone else know? admitted totion he woodward, did dr. fauci know that he said he did not have to wear a mask? did he pass the information on to anybody or keep it to himself so that he could have an insert to the book? host: have you been following the vaccine development in the news? or are you sitting back and

waiting for them to see if they say the vaccine is ready. or are you inking -- thinking about any of these experimental trials coming up. caller: i follow it every day. i'm a polio survivor, i'm 55 years old. that would be very important to incident with astrazeneca, it's proven that they are trying. i'm not saying they are not. but you cannot believe what you hear. i do my due diligence, i'm not an anti-vaccine, -- anti-vaxxer, 1958.polio in and it's worse now that i'm older. i would love to have a vaccine, but i don't want some buddy who's going to be a yes man to decide whether or not i should

inject myself. i went through one disease, i don't want to go through another. i want to look to the government and scientists both, united. it seems rudy giuliani yesterday sounded and looked like donald trump yesterday, that's unbelievable. it scares me. , hadthe way he's done it he come out and said what he told woodward, we are strong people and we've gone through a lot. we would not be jumping up and down about race riots in the suburbs. i live in the suburbs, i have black neighbors and all kinds of neighbors and nobody's raping or pillaging or doing anything to my children army. they help and carry groceries like all neighbors do. trish, ins go to seattle, washington, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i would like to weigh in on this as a research nurse of 20 years

anducting phase two a, b, 3 trials. i understand the dilemma and the pressure they are under to create the vaccine. unless you do extensive phase three trials, that's not 300 people, that's like 30,000 people plus to do those trials, you are knocking to get real information. it takes that number to suss out any of the serious adverse events, like the ones they reported the other day. if they came out and said there was a vaccine ready on november 1, right before the election, that would be a hard to know. i would -- a hard no. i would not take it and i would not advise anyone that i know not to take it until they conduct a thorough phase three clinical trial.

that takes time. they can increase that enrollment but it takes time. host: as a research nurse, what would you tell people who are already suffering and afraid they won't live until all of the it has beenver and officially declared safe and want something now. caller: i feel sorry for them. my heart goes out to them. it's not safe. you don't know if you could get a serious adverse event that .ould kill you anyways that's the devil in the details of science and research. it takes time to suss that out and you're already offering yourself up in in austria stick -- in an ultra stick way, but it has to be clinical trial. don't confuse that with yes, this is a great vaccine and you are good to go and it will work. those are different things.

if you want to be a clinical research patient, why not? another question, i remember in the day when people go to mexico, canada, overseas to put dissipate in trials -- to participate in trials that were not allowed in the united states to kill certain -- to cure certain diseases. what would you tell people who are thinking about or possibly repairing to go participate in a oral of an unknown cure vaccine in another country. fda and thehave the european model. if they are conducting that trial under their offices, fine, as long as it is good clean clinical research and the u.s. doesn't want to do it but other .ountries do it's the research company, the pharma company conducting the

trial, not the government. that has to be understood. those are two different entities. i i would not get it, but would suggest that if they do get this vaccine whipped up and thinkto go in november, i the president and his family should be the first to get the vaccination. , alsolet's go to tanisha from seattle, washington. i'm confused about where everyone is going with this. e a president that made ventilators and masks and shut .own the country they have a somewhat cure for aids and ebola, but for whatever reason this last year they

cannot tell us what this is. at the same time you cannot tell me that today i am sick and tomorrow i don't have it any without looking at respiratory or allergenic situations or asthma. you're not telling us where this is coming from. you take a flu shot because they offer it for free every year, but you can't give us specifics about what's really going on. butee death tolls everyday they don't tell us what they are doing for people who have we are looking between those who have gotten it and those who have died. there's knowing between for people who -- host: if there is a vaccine, would you take it? caller: no sir, this is why. because i feel like this.

year,fer a flu shot every but you cannot tell us what this is. and out of all of the cases that have been spoken about, 6 million cases, you have 100 some odd thousand deaths. death is death, but how any people throughout the year die from the flu? were not talking about united states, but worldwide, how many people are in the world, consider that hundred some odd thousand out of 6 million cases would be a legitimate factor shut down the country and maintain six feet distance and wear our mask. when before this happened, you could sit in front of a doctor and he did not have a mask. host: let's go to chris who was calling from port jefferson station new york. caller: good morning. how are you doing? , he put hisa fake

everything, he's lying, he knew about the spread, he said he did not want to create a panic. so if you're saying there's a hurricane in a tornado you don't tell anyone? can you believe a fake president like this? we are not stupid. we know what to do. dying, about people 190,000 people had died under his watch, what kind of president does that? and you want me to take a vaccine, i would if it was done right. if you don't take medication right, with a bad reaction --host: how do you define done when thew do we know vaccine has been done right? caller: what it is, i think they

have a system already, there's no need to push anyone, they have scientists and researchers and volunteers, everything's in place. just let the scientist do their work. don't come out in sado be out by on andnd this guy comes says the same thing the president says. he has people who say yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. don't do that, leave the fda alone and let them do their work. i'm sure everybody wants to save lives. everybody, blue state, red state, forget that, when 9/11 happened in this country, was not about new york is a blue state, let it go. every state in the country, everywhere there was a ballgame going on, they said i love new york. everything. dead.0 people are look out for americans, don't worry about what state you are in. fred from florence,

kentucky, good morning. i had polio when i was a little boy, that was before the ladyne was out, that poor who got polio in 58, that vaccine was out and it's too bad she did not get it. when they started putting out the polio vaccine, they were giving it to families who had somebody in the family who had polio. at that time it was called infantile paralysis because mostly kids got it. so my daddy said don't give it it.e, let the kids have he ended up in an iron lung with polio. eventually got into a wheelchair.

amazed that usually everybody is so pro-vaccine and because trump could get some advantage because of the vaccine , it'sy are anti-vaccine amazing to me that that's the case. trust tod, who do you get information about the vaccine? fauciyou trust if dr. said a vaccine was ready? if president trump set a vaccine was ready? after one of the pharmaceutical company said it was ready? who do you trust to know when the vaccine is ready for general population use? caller: if the vaccine were available, i would get it. and by the way, the vaccine is

-- here, it's a preventative is not a cure. it's a preventative. if somebody already has the virus, the vaccine will not help. we hope they will come out with a cure and a vaccine, but we are shooting for a vaccine and hopefully they will come out with a cure as well. caller: you might hope for that, but there's no cure for polio. and there's no cure for the flu. just vaccines for it. and every year they come out with a new flu vaccine comments not the same as the year before. toll.ing else, the death said ifazed that my son some of the dies and they had the virus, they are going to add that person to the death toll the virus.

know, my what does he son is a smart kid. but i asked the doctor and he said yes, that's right. if somebody dies from something and they have the virus, they camped out as part of the death toll for the virus. later i asked a nurse, same thing. if somebody dies from something else, and they had the virus, they add that to the death toll for the virus. so when they say there's only about 6% of those 200,000 people that died from the virus, i think that's really the number we should be looking at. host: i have not heard anybody 190,000 only 6% of the plus people have actually died from the virus. reaction had summit on the show couple weeks ago who said that he actually thinks the mike -- the number is much higher, i have not heard that some of you saying it's only 6% of the

190,000 people who have died from the virus. caller: it's only higher because there are -- there are more people who die who were tested for the virus afterwards but they don't get added to that role. i have heard in several places in the news that there's only about 6% that only died from the virus. event on tuesday with research america, dr. anthony fauci explained the vaccine stage process and get his timeline production. here's what he said. [video clip] >> right now there are six or seven candidates that the u.s. government is helping to facilitate even by developing -- either by developing with them or pre-purchasing doses, or allowing clinical trial networks to be available to them. aree of those candidates

already in phase three trials, that means you are going to enroll tens of thousands of people, volunteers, to determine if it is effective. on first two got started days later you get a boost. right now, the trials are two thirds enrolled, we project that by the end of september they will be fully enrolled, and then another month or month and a half to get that second dose. that's why i have been projecting that by the end of the year, by november or december we will know whether we have a safe or effective vaccine. i feel cautiously optimistic that we will, given the per luminary data we have seen. and there are a couple of other vaccines that will go into phase three trials at the end of

september and then october. sequentially you have a lot of candidates in play which is why we are optimistic that we will be successful with one or more. that will likely start taking place by the end of the calendar year of 2020. >> but the idea that we are going to have a vaccine by november 3, how realistic? dr. fauci: that's unlikely. the only way you could see that scenario come true is that there were so many infections in the clinical trial sites that you -- andethic he answer efficacy answer sooner than projected. if not impossible but it's unlikely that we will have a definitive answer at that time. more likely by the end of the year. host: our previous caller brought up a story about only 6% of people dying from actual

covid-19 and the other numbers being much lower. the cdc actually had an expert thatdress that in a story i want to bring to you so that we can be clear on what the issue is. i will read a couple of paragraphs. a recent report from the cdc appears to drill down on that point with striking numbers showing that 94% of u.s. deaths involving covid-19 since february were also associated with other conditions, or comorbidities. according to cdc, 46% of deaths, covid-19 was the only cause mentioned. for jets with conditions in addition to covid-19, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes predeath. the number of deaths of each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups. cdc investigators

from justins is leffler of the cdc. haveys people comorbidities, does not mean they did not die a covid-19. orid may have caused them, work synergistically to kill them. i have been over 200,000 excess all cause deaths in the u.s.. if covid-19 is not pushing up the numbers, what is? we want to bring that wheat from the cdc employee to you to explain what the caller was talking about. let's talk to sam, from a lisbeth town, kentucky. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. can you hear me? host: we can hear you, go ahead. caller: no sir, i will not take 2023,accination until

thinking will be ready by november is wishful thinking, completely political. host: sam, what if you come down with covid-19 between now and 2023, what happens if it affects you or your family or someone in your household? would you be willing to take the risk? , we have notr perfected even flu shots after decades. how can we say this is a perfect vaccination for this newborn disease? this is impossible to have a perfect vaccine by the end of this year, forget about november. it's completely wishful thinking, political. let's talk to michael, in wyoming. good morning. caller: i would definitely take it, what have i got to lose?

it's my life you're talking about. if you are skeptic and you don't want to take it, don't take it. it's my choice, i'm going to take it. host: before you go, when would you take it? would you be one of the first people in line? would you wait to see how it affects other people? when will you decide to take the covid-19 vaccination? caller: if they say they have it today i will take it today. it's my choice. if you don't want to take it, don't take it. i won't cry about it. what do we have to lose? host: let's see what some of our social media followers are thinking about the question, would you go to covid-19 vaccine question mark one person from facebook who sibley says no. -- was simply says no. thext says it depends on 95% withif it's existing conditions i would take it.

i am at high risk with pre-existing conditions. prayers for all. not 100%ccine is covered, i won't take it. another that says covid is harmless to the vast majority of the population and the response to the virus is unwarranted. one last text says we will definitely get the vaccine if they let the scientists do their jobs. but if donald trump pushes them to be ready before the election so he can claim credit we won't. we want to know what you think, would you get the covid-19 vaccine?let's -- let's talk to dawn in arizona. caller: good morning, no i would not take the vaccination until i see the long-term effects. flu: do you already take a vaccine or other vaccines? do, i: occasionally i

have a compromised immune system so i leave it to my doctor, sometimes they will give me half doses and i go in the next week so my immune system does not get overwhelmed. but i was meeting that the pharmaceutical companies will not be held liable if there are any long-term effects. this is something they generally don't do with the pharmaceutical companies, not letting them have liability. that worries me. they will push that so fast and they will not have liability financially if something long-term effects a whole bunch of people. they won't have financial liability and that worries me. to getho do you trust your information about whether a vaccine is ready or not? would you trust dr. fauci? president trump? the pharmaceutical companies? if the fda said it was ready? this point, it's a

little worrisome, because they couldn't even get the testing right in the beginning. i would trust myself when i see the effects. at first it would have been president trump because he only takes first-generation drugs, he does not like second and third-generation drugs if he rushes out. but he's rushing this out and that makes me nervous to trust that. my son is studying medical biology, he is studying to become a professor and doing clinical trials on different things. i would listen to my son a little bit, but i would just listen to myself. host: let's talk to james, calling from lawrence, massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. let me get one thing in really quick.

anybody interested in the timeline, please go to the hudson institute.com and it will give the entire timeline on what's going on with the distribution of all of this. i would take the shot. when you go on tv they put on any kind of drug on the tv and they have a guy talking five miles per hour underneath it with all tiny microscopic things with all of the disclaimers and millions of people are taking it with possibly may be less than one half or 1% of people having an adverse reaction. somebodies can have to take a risk. fauci, dr.ays tony fauci is the end-all be-all and listen to him and he's telling the truth and he's not going to lie to you and we believe him. except on the four rotations when he went before the investigative process in the congress and swore under oath

that donald trump is doing everything he's telling him to do. this is what i don't understand, people are going to sacrifice themselves and not get a shot for something. number three, ebola, that's an ,ntirely different situation you practically have to bathe in the bali fluids of some of the with it. existencebeen in since 1974. it's not going away and all these vaccines are not effective. the flu vaccine i took three effective but6% everybody runs out to get those. i don't understand what the problem is, hurry up and get a cure. you are mismanaging everything and calling him all sorts of names and now he's going too fast. which way do you want to?

host: let's go to max, from waterford, michigan. caller: good morning. it.uld not take host: do you other vaccines? caller: no i don't take the flu vaccine and i never have taken it. why? my next question is who do you trust to get medical information, especially about something as serious as the coronavirus? from what i have seen, the coronavirus is not a serious as what you are saying. i don't believe it because i test,eople who get the they come up positive, but they give them two tests, the first comes a positive, the second comes up negative. what's up with that? in the first positive does not come out. if trump came out and set a bunch of other stuff about what

really was going on, you can't even find toilet paper. people were panicking. tell peopledidn't more than what he told them. that theyou think people who have died from coronavirus, do you think they die from something else or some the else caused their death? caller: i think at minimum 50% died of something else, everybody is dying from everything else. host: i can assure you that people did not stop dying from other things. fromr: people are dying heart attacks or strokes, if you get in a car accident you die from covid. , fromlet's go to brandon milwaukee, wisconsin. good morning. vaccinei would take the , but i think it's important to keep in mind that how this rollout is going to occur, all

ies won't me's -- norm get first dibs, it will go to first responders and doctors and those people will have a trial with that so the rest of us are going to find out from these first responders about how well it is working. and i think it's important to when the h1n1hat vaccine rolled out, there were long lines to get the vaccine and the rollout was not smooth. people who wanted it could not get it. mess.cipate a similar i think the people that want to it are not going to get it for a long time. we will see the data come another, thisy or vaccine will have safety for other people. host: do you or when do you plan

to get the vaccine yourself? caller: i'll take it at the first opportunity to protect other people. i want to spend more time with high-risk individuals but i don't because of that risk. if i had the vaccine, for me that's enough to get back to normal life. if that's what it takes i would do it. host: the senate health committee held a hearing on wednesday where senator doug jones of alabama asked the surgeon general and the director of the national institute for health about the conspiracy theory that they had heard involving vaccines. here's that exchange. [video clip] >> one of the things i am not seeing from nih or from the federal government's efforts to really debunk these theories as opposed to giving positive information. or two oftake one these theories and tell us what

you have heard, what's the most outrageous thing and debunk it as quickly as you can so the people on the record know that they should not follow these crazy theories that are out there about vaccines. >> i will take a first one. vaccines don't cause autism. we have looked at the trials, we've looked at the studies, vaccines don't cause autism. >> i agree with that but the craziest one that i have heard is that this is all designed by bill gates and when you get the vaccine it has a chip in it that will get stuck into your system and watch everything you are doing. people believe that. >> none of the vaccines are designed to be big brother over people. they are designed, i take it, save lives, correct? to saves exactly right, lives and money. vaccinations are worth 402 billion incorrect -- indirect

the direct cost. >> i have a t-shirt that says vaccines cause adults. >>. good. host: let's go back to social media and see what our followers are thinking about with the question would you get a covid-19 vaccine. vaccinationet a flu every year and that kills up to 80,000 people year. yes i will get a vaccine and i wish democrats would stop politicizing it and scaring people. another says i would be the first in line for a vaccine, the only way towards herd immunity. we have illuminated polio and many other diseases with the vaccine. it's a no-brainer for me. another says i will not take anything under this administration. too many lives. and one last text says i would

need the insurance of independent medical experts and dr. fauci. i don't trust trump and his sycophantic appointees. would you get a covid-19 vaccines are let's talk to harvey, from south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i would definitely take the vaccine, i have already had the coronavirus, but politics is nothing to do with it. this president is not a scientist. he knows nothing about medicine. i don't think he has anything to i -- if he is a scientist -- going on alane or ship, those are scientific apparatuses and i trust those. i trust science. the president of the united states is not a scientist. he does not know anything about creating an antiviral drug and he would like to create -- and he would like to take credit for

like anyone else in government. but the government people are not scientists. host: before i let you go, tell us about your experience with coronavirus, how did it affect you? how are you now? caller: i'm great now, i was in the hospital for 16 days here in orangeburg, south carolina. we had good medical staff. have memory loss and it prevails to some degree. my breathing is coming back, it was compromised, but i'm happy i came through. but i'm also a man of faith and that played a major role in my life, as it does as i move forward in life. i don't hear that coming from a lot of people. i don't hear that coming from our political leaders. i also believe that this virus exists for a purpose. it's a devastation so many people, but there are also some

important lessons that we should learn. host: tell us what symptoms you had? you are in the hospital for 16 days, how did the coronavirus affect you, because we see some any people in 70 different conditions from the coronavirus. caller: i did not have to go on a ventilator but i was very sick. it felt like a paralysis. when i was in the hospital, people would call and all i could say was thank you very much for calling. i did not have a will to communicate. i did not talk much with the doctors. state almost a zombielike . i felt like i was in between being in conscious and out of conscious. but i'm very thankful that i with a strong faith

community and strong family members who were there after i recovered. wet: i want to remind you, have talked about this on the show. on thursday we had two vaccine experts on washington journal, dr. jesse goodman of the georgetown medical center and dr. william moss of john hopkins. if you missed either of those segments and you want to go back and see what the vaccine experts said, you can go to our website to learn more and watch those segments. let's talk to frank from yuma, arizona. good morning. .aller: good morning when my doctor says it is ready, i am ready. i had aad the flu shot, shot first shingles, my mother has the coronavirus, she's in a nursing home. but once a doctor says it's available i will be the first

because i want to host: protect my family. host:do you mean your --to protect my family. your personalean doctor, dr. fauci, the surgeon general? caller: my primary care physician in yuma. when it is ready i will be the first in line. dan, froms talk to chester springs pennsylvania -- chester springs, pennsylvania. caller: i am a family practitioner. with regards to the vaccine, the fact that the coronavirus is so virulent, i think that i personally would wait a little bit. not that i don't want to take it, but i want time to see what kind of side effects it has for vaccines that have been associated with other problems. to see wait a little bit what kind of effects it has.

there's a lot of studies done when a drug or vaccine comes out and i would like to see what happened. and obviously you have to listen to the science, as much a political science as you can get. and i think one of our biggest driftss that the virus and gets a virulent to humans and drifts so it's not as easy to catch or out of a population of humans and back to a population of things like bats or whatever where it came from. you said youmember are a family practitioner? caller: yes, for 30 years. host: what's your opinion on whether children should be

required to get a covid-19 vaccine once it's available and safe to attend school? caller: once it is available and safe? host: once we know is safe to get the children, what is your opinion on requiring children to have a before they attend school? caller: i don't think there should be a requirement. i think everybody has to make up their own decision whether to get the vaccine or not. wait.would still i want to see what happens not just in studies because the studies are not the be-all and end-all. i want to see what happens in the general population, i want to see if there are any serious side effects from taking it. i don't think you have to wait years and years but i would wait six months, three months, and see what happens postmarked in the general population.

guessn take an educated but you can't just translate to a general population from studies. calling froms oakland, california. good morning. morning, thank you for c-span, thank you for being here. i appreciate you. i want to say that i really remarks.ed harvey's it was really poignant with what he had to say. host: would you take a covid-19 vaccine as soon as it was available? or like the doctor who was just on, would you wait a couple of years to see what happens? as far as trump has been will comeat a vaccine out before the election and this and that, it's very politicized and scary.

,e saw the recent report companies trying to figure out that exceeds and rolling that back. so i am skeptical. i think it depends on what we are looking at and what the vaccine -- i would definitely take a vaccine, but it depends vettingesearch and the that is going on. host: what would you think about a mandate for children to take a covid vaccine before they reopen for public schools. caller: oh gosh. of thehe politicizing andine at this point, science versus administration and everything going on, i would

be skeptical. i have a son that is 16 years old, i'm not rushing him back into the schools. it just doesn't make sense. i love my son, i want him to live, i don't want any repercussions from that. i think it's really important that we look at this. but if i may say one other thing , a little aside from the topic and i apologize. i want to say that there's a lot of things going on around antiracism, there's a lot of things going on around the state sanctioned brutality and police brutality against black folks, brown folks, and i really feel like we are at a crossroads and with our president we only have to decide what we want america to be in terms of america's ideals. host: during the senate health

committee, senator rand paul questions dr. francis collins about the need for a covid vaccine mandate for children in schools. here is that exchange. haveaul: we recommendations for certain age vaccine fore is a those over six to five, i have had it, i've been to central america, i have had all of the vaccines. i'm still for choice, that does not mean we blindly say everyone must submit. vaccines used to be more recommended for those in risk categories and those who were older. at one time they were recommended for those over 50. now it is more extensive. that's fine. vaccines aren't readily safe. at the same time we really need

to think through our fervor before we start mandating and making people take tests. my question is considering the death rate for covid among million, are68 per you in favor of adding a school mandate unless you get a covid vaccine? >> it would be premature for me to make a statement about what would be appropriate or not since we don't even know to what extent the vaccines are currently being studied are going to be safe and effective. we won't know until later how they work for children. >> but once they are safe and effective for children, are you in favor of mandating that you cannot go to school unless you take one? >> i would have to understand the consequences. i'm not ready to give an answer. there is an issue about children getting infected and infecting others around them that may have an immune system that cannot handle it. that's one of the reasons we are so concerned about having children vaccinated, to avoid

the kind of terrible circumstance where a was getting chemotherapy for cancer ends up getting sick. host: earlier in the show we had a caller that wondered about the liability for pharmaceutical any possibled vaccine. there's a story that was in the intercept that addresses that very issue that i want to read. what will happen to those companies that make and market the vaccine at people have discovered that they were harmed by a product that was brought to market hastily? according to a law that passed in spring, pretty much nothing. it stipulates that companies cannot be sued for money, damages -- for money damages in injuries oh -- over caused by countermeasures for covid-19, including vaccines, therapeutics, and respiratory devices. the only exception is if death

or serious physical injury is called by willful misconduct. so there is an answer to the question about what happens to pharmaceutical companies of people are harmed by any possible coronavirus vaccine. let's get in a couple of calls. we will start with hercules, from washington, d.c.. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing to mark -- doing? host: i'm doing well. caller: i hate that we cannot sue if they cause injury. but anyways, i would not take the vaccine. i know people who came down with the virus and got very sick. it's out there and it affect people. the people ignore natural

remedies that heal us. nobody ever talks about that. they haveountries, things like zinc and green tea and garlic, there are natural remedies that can stop the virus and kill it in its tracks, but you never hear about that because their os talking about taking a vaccine. i have never taken a flu vaccine and never had to because i grew up knowing how to cure the body and cure myself. , in: let's go to bob jacksonville, tennessee. caller: thank you very much, we enjoy the show. i leaned towards wanting to take the vaccine, but here's what would make up my mind. i would be willing to take it right after the president and his family took it. if they show that on tv i would be willing to take it. thank you. fred, from go to

florida. good morning. morning.ood i would like to say when the vaccine, when we came out with that everyone had their mindset on was let's wait and see what happens. especially after magic johnson with his announcement. , we need to correct wait and allow the scientists -- this is what they do. we are all here on this earth for a purpose, we cannot have half the knowledge of everything. so the vaccine would save lives, these procedures must be done

like everything else from the polio vaccine and all the other vaccines. it took time for the study to get the positive results and didyone was safe after we the proper way. this is what i want to say. i will take it. andd a heart transplant everybody said you would not survive from. after we went through the declinations and all of this, we were successful with the heart transplant, some of those procedures, after you receive the transplant is what is keeping a lot of us alive

today. because the masks were acquired. gloves were required. germs and that sort of thing. and allow be patient everything to work then it will not be a debate, it will be a success. let's talk to larry, from michigan, good morning. are you there? larry, but i'm calling from honolulu. host: oh my apologies, that's hawaii, not michigan. caller: first, i would not believe anything for the only thing that comes out of trump's mouth is slop. when he talks i don't even pay attention to him. i turn the channel. probablything, i would

wait after the vaccine comes out and listen to the polls to see what they say first. if they concur with the vaccine, i will take it. host: who do you consider the pros to be? the fda, the pharmaceutical company westmark the nih? nih, dr. fauci, that's the only guy i will listen to. all the others are playing up to trump. to frank, from nashville, tennessee. good morning. caller: hello. , i a practicing doctor listening -- i have been listening all day and i'd like to talk about a hundred different things.

but the main thing, your doctor who was a private practitioner in general medicine, he ,entioned transverse myelitis your member that? host: yes. i was involved with a inect case and that, back 1976. , i was in the va hospital and i was asked to go talk to the sky. so first we found out whether or so first we found out whether or not he had it. he did have it. what happened when you got the injection.

he said i was strung up for the employment -- appointment but i never got the injection. he never got the injection. i dropped him out. host: when would you get a covid-19 vaccine or would you get one? caller: i would not get one. host: why not? are good and medicines to treat the side effects of the disease when it occurs. -- medicinesere are good to treat the side effects of the disease when it calls. -- occurs. host: we will take a look at extremism in the united states on the right and left. a discussion on right wing extremism and then, later, we will be joined by michael kenny of the university of pittsburg as we turn our attention to antifa and left wing extremism.

we will be right back. >> with the ongoing global pandemic and many schools shifting to online learning, see stans student competitions provides students with the platform to engage in national conversations. we are asking middle and high school students to produce a five to six minute documentary exploring the issues they most want the president and new congress to address in 2021. >> including the gimmick times in the sixth to eighth amendments. >> when youth are given the opportunity and skills to become informed voters and engaged democracy must be learned. for children who were born here but whose parents illegally

migrated here, -- awarding $100,000 in total cash prizes including a grand prize of $5,000. the deadline to submit is january 20, 2021. for more information on rules, tips and how to get started, go to our website, studentcam.org. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back and we will spend the next segment talking about right wing extremism in the united states. with us is author and university of massachusetts lowell who isor arie perliger, the author of american zealot, inside right wing domestic terrorism. good morning. guest: good morning. thank you host: for having me. host:let's break -- guest: thank you for having me. host: how do you define extremism? guest: we are talking about a

group or sometime individuals whose political views are on the margins, the extremities of the political spectrum. not just that. they are also militant in the way they promote their views. they are engaging in illegal activities as well as, in many cases, utilizing violence or violent practices to promote their goal. host: now, we are going to talk about right wing extremism with you. later on we will talk about left-wing extremism. can you tell me the difference or is there a difference between right wing extremism and left-wing extremism? guest: yes. the difference is in the ideological ideas that they are trying to promote. when we are talking about the far right, we are talking about groups that want to promote the privileges of specific groups. talking about groups that want to restore or maintain the privileges of white people. these are groups that oppose

integration of american society. these are groups that oppose the central government or want to undermine the powers of the central government. in general, we are talking about groups that really believe that they need to basically advance and maintain the privileges of a specific segment of their population, whether it is white , we have far-right groups that promote male super missy. we are talking -- super missy -- supremacy. there talking about exclusiveness. guest: can you give me examples of current right wing extremism in the united states? host: there -- guest: there is many. the landscape of far-right extremism in the u.s. is very diverse and fragmented. we have the traditional right

super missy groups that we are familiar with such as that -- supremacy groups such as the kkk. we have skinheads who are active in various parts of the country. we also have a set of groups that are mainly focused on antigovernment or anti-federal ideology. these are groups that believe the federal government is extremely intrusive and is interested in increasing its power and violating their constitutional rights. conspiracye various theory about the future intentions of the federal government. most of us know these groups as demolition movements. some of the more contemporary ers.ps are the 3% i will be able to elaborate later on if people have questions. we have groups that are using religious rhetoric in order to advance white supremacy and

far-right ideas. i am talking mainly about the christian identity movement to providereligion sentiments and ideas of white supremacy etc. host: let me remind our viewers that they can take part in the conversation. we will open up regional lines again. if you're in the eastern or central time zones, you can call (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain and specific -- pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. you can always text (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media. ie, what is americans history with right wing terrorism? is this something that has been going on since the american revolution or before or is this more of a recent 20th century thing? guest: no, it is definitely part of the history of the american

political system and political landscape. as far as anti-immigration, exclusive movements, it was the know nothing party. that was a party that was very successful in the mid-19th century and promoted anti-immigration policies and anti-catholic ideas and so on. and used very toxic racist language in order to promote their ideas. war, we saw the emergence of the kkk. of kkkere multiple waves activities shortly after the civil war. 20thin the early century. after world war ii, we saw the emergence of various neo-nazi organizations. in the 1980's, we saw the alsoeads joining them, becoming a very significant power within the american white power movement.

the skinheads were the most organized movement within the far-right in the last decade of the 20th century. in between, you see the emergence of demolition movements. it is important to note that while i am talking about different groups, they are different in terms of ideology and membership. joined multiple groups and most of them did not prevent them from being active in multiple platforms. it is a very fluid landscape. before,tioned throughout history there were many splits and merges. it is challenging to monitor and identify the different active groups. always we have new groups and new movements that are relying, partially at least, on previous ones. host: we talked about the past three let's talk about what is going on right now. a draft of the

department of homeland security, state of the homeland threat assessment. here is a little bit of what it says. they are small cells of individuals motivated by a diverse array -- array of social, ideological and personal factors will pose the primary terrorist threat to the united states. among these groups, we assess that white supremacist extremists who increasingly are networking with like-minded persons abroad, will pose the most persistent and lethal threats. do you agree with that assessment that this is the most persistent and lethal threat for terrorism in the united states? guest: i agree with the assessment. most importantly, the data shows that they are correct. they would not have made that statement without actually having the data to back it up. if you look at the data, since 2008, the most prevalent type of political violence in the united

states is violence from the far-right. we see a dramatic rise in the level of violence after the elections in 2008. since then, we are experiencing high levels of violence. aboutl, if we are talking domestic ideological violence, the far-right is the most prominent one in the u.s.. host: let's let some of our viewers join in with the conversation. let's start with mike who is calling from massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. this is going to go off of what you just said. i am glad you mentioned the homeland security report. i am going to make a comment and then ask a question. and i am veryere socially liberal. i am trying to figure out is it just my bias for is it really

true that the right wing extremism is worse than the left wing extremism in terms of the country? poses to the i really think the right wing extremism is a lot more dangerous at this point for a couple of reasons. thateing because folks support that kind of thing are really functioning on a core level of hatred and violence and urge to maintain exclusive power at the expense of others. are impliedt they by -- empowered by the gop and trump. it feels like it has gotten a lot worse in four years in terms of the divisiveness. on the left side, you have people functioning on the core

compensating for some -- some kind of -- what am i trying to say? they are functioning on some kind of need to bring people together in support of others and to heal the community. what does your guest think about that? am i being biased or is it really true that one side is more dangerous than the other? host: go ahead and respond. guest: the data shows that we have more violence from the far-right van the far-left. i think all experts agree about the data. also, it is important to mention that the far-right is more organized, more effective, it seems like in terms of mobilizing support and in

coordinating its efforts. there are a high number of groups that are active on the far-right. if you are looking at some of the most notable and visible recent attacks such as the synagogue in pittsburgh, seems like the far-right is much more effective in inspiring individuals in perpetrating actual attacks. i would also mention the fact that, in general, we see that the political polarization and the delegitimization of political rivals, individually -- eventually enhancing powers and groups to engage in violence. if you are pretraining the other a threat, eventually you will get to the point in which

some people feel empowered and feel that they have the jetta missy and support to use the legitimacy and support to used violence against their opponents. host: let's talk to brian in salt lake, utah. good morning. caller: i feel like a lot of the stuff he is saying his propaganda because right conservatives are not racist. we do not burn people's houses down. it is antifa. in portland, oregon, all of these places, chicago, they don't ever say black on black killings. that is what it is. is my question to you racist they are the damn people. america is not a racist country. i'm sorry. they are the ones burning stuff down. it is not we, the conservatives.

the democratic party is the party of the ku klux klan. so, when you are saying the right wing, that all started with the democrats. woodrow wilson, it all goes down. even lyndon baden's johnson -- lyndon baines johnson was a racist. martin luther king made him give rights so that they could drink water. .hat is all bull crap it is not what america is about. host: go ahead and respond. guest: as a scientist, i care less about the partisan issues. i am looking at the data. you aretifa, when talking about antifa, you're talking about a recent movement. something between 10 to 20 and 30 people in each area for each town. we are talking about a fairly

small group that is not really coordinated effectively. befar, while they may involved in some of the protests we see, it is difficult to argue that they are engaging in any kind of violent campaign. they are not operating on the same level that we see on the far-right. when you are talking about the whichor the old keepers, actually have an organization that is deploying people in areas where there are clashes read it is much more organized. correct. in the early 20th century, many politicians from the democratic party remembers of the kkk. they were affiliated with the organization. again, this is the political reality that existed more than 100 years ago. today, i am not arguing the any of the parties are s

endorsing violence. as someone who is reading the forication of the far-right quite some time, the ideas and conspiracy theories i read in their writings 10 years ago are now appearing in much more mainstream platforms. that is my concern. the transition of some of the more concerning an appalling conspiracy theories that are gradually moving to the mainstream and gaining legitimacy. this is something that concerns me, personally, as someone who is trying to study these threats. host: here is an argument that is made by the center for strategic and international studies in their study on terrorism in the united states. this comes from july. this is what they say. human rights terrorism

has outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators those inspired by al qaeda. the total number of right-wing attacks has grown significantly in the past six years. do you agree with that analysis? guest: i definitely agree. the level of violence i think is much higher. in my book, i provide a more .obust data we have to understand that most of the data that is being captured by law enforcement and some of the recent studies are attacks that lead to casualties or gain some sense of visibility. however, if you are looking at the less visible incidents, such as spontaneous tax -- attacks against people of color and minorities, attacks against lgbtq, acts of vandalism,

against religious facilities and so on, the numbers are much higher and the trends are even more and more clear. if we were talking about the numbers, i don't think anybody can doubt the numbers. currently, the most prevalent form of political violence in this country is coming from the far-right. there areso say that other types of violence. if i need to frame the conversation, here we are talking about violence motivated by political objectives or political goals. if you are looking at that type of violence, again, the data shows that it is much more on thent and it exists far-right of the spectrum. host: let's go to tim who is calling from georgia. good morning. caller: i appreciate you coming on and expressing your opinion.

you look at the media and news upadays, i think the cover -- they are making the statement for what? who are these people? we are talking thousands, thousands of people. my point is why are you coming on trying to create division? that is what needs to stop in this country. host: go ahead and respond. guest: first of all, i agree that divisions are not good. however, the political polarization and the d of political rivals is intensifying in the last decade or so in a very visible way. i think that we need to be conscious about the fact that we have a problem. i think that ignoring the problem or arguing that there is no such problem, especially as

someone who is trying to study phenomenonsl -- from a scientific perspective, the only thing i can rely on is data. or formulating these opinions based on what i read in the news. we are actually looking at the data and trying to ensure the data is as accurate as possible. when you are talking about groups from the left, we have not seen yet any kind of coordinated campaign of violence. definitely not on the same levels that you see from the far-right. when you are talking about left-wing violence, mostly, that violence is actually coming from environmental organizations. some of the more active organizations on the left were not the conventional left that we are familiar with. like the earth liberation front and the animal liberation front and so on. host: you have talked several

times about your database. violent a database of incidents in the united states. tell us about that. how do you track violent incidents? what have you found? guest: we are talking about more since theincidents 1990's, until the last few years. the data shows some really interesting trends. for example, we see that the violence is much more prominent what most referred to as blue states, diverse states such as california and massachusetts and illinois and florida. these are the states experiencing the highest level of violence. there are multiple reasons for that. the perception that the violence in thely existing southern states is actually not accurate.

actually, what we see is that the backlash against diversity is happening more in the blue states. we can see from the data for example that election times are very, very volatile. we see that again and again in the primary years and during the presidential election years. there is a significant spike in the level of violence. the environment is more contentious. people feel more empowered and more legitimacy through engaging militant activism. also, i think it is the result of a little bit of frustration. i think the far-right feels they have limited influence on the political process and its members feel more empowered to engage in more acts of violence in order to manifest their views and promote their views. we see also, if we are talking

about popular targets, we see a dramatic increasing of attacks against religious facilities. which we are still trying to explain why this is the case. but, it is also related to the fact that on the far-right, we see a growing usage of religious rhetoric and a historical mayoric, something that encourage more individuals to act against religious facilities. we have seen recent attacks against the lgbtq community. the last thing i will say is acts of violence are not planned events. we see that a lot of the incidents that are being driven by racism and white supremacy are actually very spontaneous. they are being triggered without any advanced plan. if we needans that

to devise policies to counter it, we need to think about these conditions that facilitate this of spontaneous battle. host: one of our commenters on social media wants to know about right-wing extremism in the military and law enforcement. can you talk about that? guest: one of the major concerns that many experts have is the significant portion of veterans and, in some cases, active duty in some of the militia groups. was this morning, there something published in the new --k times saying that he 5% of the militia groups are veterans or active-duty soldiers.

also former law enforcement. these are concerns for two reasons. because if they decide to engage in violence, they have the expertise and training. thesecondly, because american people have a lot of appreciation, respect and trust withe military and people military background. and it is easier for these and respectilize their legitimacy for their own cause. to portray themselves as a legitimate organization or an organization that -- this may be a source of concern. that theortant to note numbers are not completely clear. what is definitely clear is that the organizations are making a significant effort to recruit veterans and active-duty soldiers. host: let's go back to our phone

lines and talk to jeffrey who is calling from summerville, south carolina. good morning. morning.ood i am not sure where to start. right on the cover is a picture of a kkk member. the kkk was the disenfranchised democratic party. it seems like additionally common knowledge that if you are fascist, if you are the opposite, you are an anti-fascist. again, democrats wearing masks or hoods. data -- you are saying the data shows corneille did efforts by right-wing extremists. --n again he says coordinated efforts by right-wing extremists. if he is challenged on a point, termdes behind the

scientist. i just go where the science leads me. from my years in the military, i saw nothing of what he was talking about as far as the racism or extremism. i saw none of it. and i think i would just close with a quote from abraham lincoln. and he said soon we will all be either abolitionists or democrats. go ahead and respond. think, first of all, i don't feel the need to apologize for using scientific methods to study the issue. that is what i do. i am relying on data. --, if you are talking about i think he had one point which i would like to clarify. the fact that there are a lot of spontaneous attacks does not mean that there are no coordinated efforts.

these two characteristics are not necessarily mutually we areve, especially as documenting sometimes hundreds of attacks or incidents every year. yes, and also we have to remember that many of these spontaneous incidents are actually results of an ongoing propaganda and ongoing mobilization effort by these organizations. in many cases, these individuals may act independently alone. but after they were basically exposed to significant propaganda contains -- campaigns , someial networks right-wing forms are successful. most are familiar with storm front. there are others. when we are talking about these , someduals or, som

people like to call them lone wolves. we have to remember they are not lone wolves. they are part of virtual communities. it -- these two elements are not really mutually exclusive. for me, it is not a partisan issue. all of us regardless of our political affiliation should be worried if there are groups of people who are breaking the law and are using violence to promote their political views. i think it is important to distinguish between being a radical, which is, you know, it is fine as long as you are not using violence and not breaking the law in order to promote your radical views. we have constitutional protections. we have the rights to hold our views. the problem starts and these other groups i am focusing on, the problem starts when people start using violent methods to

promote their goals or engaging in illegal activities. this is what we need to start worrying about. these people do not get protections. eventually the activities of groups using violence to promote their political objective erodes the political trust that people have in the competency of the government. it erodes the social fabric of our society. and the fact that -- and it makes almost every electoral competition into some kind of too-sum gain which leads escalation in the social and political environment. and two more toxic rhetoric and language and eventually to more violence. about should be worried the increasing political violence in this country, regardless of our affiliation or political views. host: one of our social media followers points out that you have been talking about a lot of data during this conversation

and they want to know can you recommend where viewers can find this data that you are talking about? guest: yes. i do not want to do such blunt pr. in my book, i provide a fairly high number of charts and figures that illustrates how the data was collected and how the data was analyzed and so on. aactually provide mythological appendix in the book. answerways happy to questions about the data. by the way, i am not the only one who argues that the level of violence on the far right is increasing, although many other organizations, research centers and think tanks have similar data and have arrived to a similar conclusion. consensuals, it is a

position. earlier this week, chad wolf delivered the 2020 state of the homeland and discussed dhs efforts against extremists in the united states for a let's wilson -- listen to what he said. [video clip] are --ent their rotors credite roosevelt said belongs to the man who is actually in the arena. every day, dhs professionals are in that arena while others sit on the sidelines and criticize. they have that right and dhs law enforcement probably ensures they can exercise that right safely. we see groups right here at home seeking to tear down our government institutions and our way of life. i am proud to say that dhs has taken unprecedented action to

address all forms of violent extremism. year, the department released a comprehensive saturday -- strategy that lays out the dhs commission in preventing such violence. the president requested a 300% increase in funding for dhs wide efforts. just this week, we are releasing an implementation plan that outlines dozens of separate actions across the dhs enterprise. let me be clear. absolutes in opposition to any form of violent extremism. whether by white supremacist or anarchist extremists. we will continue our daily efforts to combat all forms of domestic terrorism. host: how do you think the dhs

is doing in combating violent extremism in the united states? we areso, i think eventually moving to the right direction. i think that if you talk with people from the government from 20 or 30 years ago, for most federal agencies, terrorism was a foreign policy problem and not a domestic problem. when people talked about terrorism 20 or 30 years ago, for the most part they talked about a phenomenon that is happening in other countries. when it happens here it is more hate crime than ideological violence. in the past 20 years, we have seen a growing acknowledgment within our government that this is a significant threat. it is a significant policy problem and we should address it. we should examine it and we should try to develop some effective counter policies.

especially as we are talking about far-right extremism. in the last few years, there is a growing attention to the threat as well as the streamlining of more resources to study the threat and in order to respond to it. overall, i think that we see a real transition. there is also more and more voices that are emphasizing the legalo develop mechanisms. -- i am not sure all of these measures will be effective. nonetheless, we see that within the legislative and executive branch. there are more and more voices that understand that we need to equip our law enforcement with more legal and operational tools to deal with this threat. let's go to ryan who is calling from palm springs, california. caller: thank you for taking my call.

for a sitewaiting from the data. you said your book but that is not where you got the data from or aside. another point is jim crow was a democrat. trying to tie violent crimes to a certain political party and stuff is just like -- i don't know how it correlates -- how you correlate the two completely. manyow many anti--- how pro trump supporters do you see at a biden rally protesting biden? you only see democrats at trump rallies, protesting trump. the silent majority is not out instigating during anti-protests or nothing like that.

host: go ahead and respond. guest: i will say a few things. throughout this program, i have not mentioned -- i have not argued that the violence is directly the responsible the of eight specific political party. explicit --of -- a specific clinical party. i said some of our leaders may promote conspiracy theories. i am not saying we should associate it with a specific political apparatus. it is not a partisan issue. it is not who is worse, democrats or republicans? it is about the fact that we .hould be concerned about this

they are empowered to use violence to attack their political rivals and promote political views. but it has new thing intensified in the last few years. regardless of what is your political view, this is a concerning development. i appreciate the audience's calls. i don't see that as a partisan issue. i don't see that as a necessarily political issue. it is a threat that is -- it can lead to the erosion of our society. erosion of to the the trust that we have in our government. to veryly, it leads troubling consequences. and we need to deal with that. and it is related to the growing political polarization. if every conflict becomes zero-sum gain in which you cannot afford to lose, people are willing to go very far to not lose. you cane can say

disagree with our political views but you do not need to take a gun or build a bomb to prevent others from exposing their political views, this is where the problem ends. that was true all the time. you can have your opinion. for example, the pro-life and pro-choice debate, the problem is with individuals who want to bomb clinics. that is the problem. when people are resorting to violence and illegal activities to promote.nt no one tells the what kind of -- tells you what kind of political views to support. you can protest. it is part of the ways in which the public expresses its views and priorities. the problem again is when we start to see more organized violence. this is when all of us need to be concerned. that can really lead to a very undesirable consequence in the long-term. host: some of our viewers are

asking for data. here is the political story about the department of homeland security. a brief on extremism in the unite states. all three documents note that 2019 was the most deadly year for domestic violence extremists since the oklahoma city bombing in 1995. among mastic -- domestic violence extremists actions, white supremacy leaders conducted half of all of the attacks, resulting in the majority of deaths, 39 out of 48. people are wondering about the data. what i want to ask you before we lose you for tom, how has the internet -- time, how has the internet changed extremism on the right wing side, or has it? guest: it definitely changed that. first of all, i think that a lot of individuals can now become part of these communities.

these virtual communities that really are promoting and fostering these kinds of views. what it also created is actually it democratized many of these movements. the leaders of the far-right and the kkk chapters and neo-nazi organizations actually now are in much more political communications with their followers. that goes both ways. the followers influence the leaders and the leaders have more power to shape their followers. thatore important thing is recruitment, propaganda became very cheap and easy. to use theneed conventional media in order to promote your views to publicize your events. a much more decentralized , encouraging people to take action and so on.

by the way,also, that they are more visible. lawh makes the work of enforcement easier because everything is out there. if there is one thing i think we should remember, it is that people that held these radical views in the past felt isolated. as a result, they felt less legitimacy to act on their views. today, when you have these virtual communities that are proliferating and very active, it is much easier for the leaders of these groups to empower their followers to take action. these are tools that were much more limited in the past when most of the communication was through vhs videos or pum less effective publication. host: we would like to thank arie perliger who is the author of american zealot.

and a security studies director. thank you for being here with us this one. guest: thank you for having me. it was a pleasure. host: next up, we will turn to antifa with michael kenny at the university of pittsburg. stick around. we will be right back. berg -- pittsburgh. we will be right back. >> this week on q&a, richard theon discusses his book covid-19 catastrophe. we have to figure out a way to get past this acute phase. now, we will. it is going to take some years though. there are two ways to help reduce the risk. one is a vaccine. as i have said, that is only

part of the solution. the other is this idea that came up early on in the pandemic, which was not the way to manage it. in the long term, it is important. it is her timidity. more people who build up immunity to the virus, that will reduce the possibility of there being these epidemic or pandemic outbreaks. that is not going to happen this year or next year or the year after. it will take several years for that to take place. we have to be in this for the long haul. horton, sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. president donald trump and former vice president joe biden are set to debate on tuesday, september 29. pres. trump: biden supports cutting police funding and he end it.ged to

for the policy of releasing riders, bandoliers -- vandals and extremists without charge. >> he lied to the people. he lied to the threat -- lied about the threat to the country for months. he had the information and new how dangerous it was. while the deadly disease ripped through our nation, he failed to do his job on purpose. it was a life and death betrayal of the american people. >> watch live coverage of the first presidential debate on tuesday, september 29. watch c-span's debate coverage live or on-demand at c-span.org/debates. find all presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span's library. there is candidate information

and election results. go to c-span.org/debate. or listen live on the free c-span radio app. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with professor michael kenny of the university of pittsburgh. we are going to talk about antifa and left-wing extremism in this segment. michael, good morning. guest: good morning. thank you for having me. host: i will ask you the same question we talked about earlier in our segment about right wing extremism. first of all, i want you to define extremism for us and tell us the difference between left-wing and right-wing extremism if there is one. guest: ok. absolutely. the first thing i can say about that is that extremism is what an essentially

contested concept. in layman's terms, it means different things to different people. if you were to ask 100 terrorism experts to defined extremism, you would certainly get a wide number of answers, if not 100. speaking for myself, i would define extremism as not just believing -- certainly there is belief and then there is action. and sometimes, scholars will distinguish between the two. but, believing in things that are fundamentally radical, that would imply radical change or -- for society. in other words, if the extremist's political views were actualized in society, society would be changed in fundamental ways from what it is now. there is distinctions that are

made between extremism and violent extremism. violent extremists are people who believe that violence is necessary to bring about these changes. extremism on the far-right and extremism on the far-left, there are differences in terms of their beliefs. a far-left an hour kissed anarchist believes much different things than a far-right boogaloo boys. -- left,r-right, anarchists believe that all forms of government are deleted meant -- not legitimate. man and woman cannot be free until government is replaced onh local institutions based direct democracy. violent folks would believe in

the use of violence to achieve those goals. people thatdes subscribe to anarchist beliefs. some antifa supporters are not anarchists. there is a difference between the two. host: president trump recently sought to define antifa. i want to show you what he said at a press briefing. i want you to respond to it. here is president trump. [video clip] have -- we: they will have no tolerance for anarchy, no tolerance, zero for violence. this includes targeting law enforcement, efforts to focus on antifa, the left-wing domestic terror organization. the mission of antifa is to spread terror in the u.s. population with the goal of getting americans to give up to their agenda. this is how terrorist

organizations have always operated. biden will not say the name antifa. i don't believe he said it today. he did not mention that. he mentioned others but he did not mention antifa. he mentioned law enforcement and the police. but he did not mention antifa. i wonder why. i want you toael, define for us what antifa, what they are. and do you agree with the president's characterization? guest: i would not agree with the president's characterization. i believe the president is engaged in labeling. it is kind of a classic political rhetoric tactic in which you define your opponents and younemy mischaracterize who they are and what they are about. frankly, this is a lot of what we are seeing right now in the popular discourse and in the

.edia about narrative in the media reports, it is this narrative that is coming out. i would define antifa as it is not a single organization. let alone a terrorist organization. it is actually a very loose collection of groups and individuals. some would characterize it as a movement. others would characterize it as a network. command andcentral control at the national level. what you have had is essentially the number of dozens of local groups located in different cities in the united states and ,n areas you might not think of composed of a small number of activists who organize for one common purpose. and that is to confront what racism. as fascism and

in this case, in the united states. so, they are committed to stopping either by force or not , any attempt by far-right extremists to organize and publicize their views. because, from the antifa perspective, these views, the far-right white supremacist views represent an existential threat to americans pluralistic multiracial society. that is what they target. within that broad movement, people have different views. you have your and >> communists. anarchic communists. you even have liberal anti-fascists. these are people who have no qualms about going out on the

street and engaging in fisticuffs with white supremacists at a protest but anynot anarchists in meaningful sense. they don't want to overthrow government institutions. in fact, they are quite liberal in that respect. they may even vote. now, anarchists and antifa supporters do not vote. they tend to view our political system as illegitimate. they scorn liberals, such as myself and many other people. so, there is a lot of variety within that larger movement. is thaton thread there antifa, which is short for anti-fascist, they believe that we have to confront any forms of white supremacism, neo-nazis, and far-right extremists.

because we don't confront them now, it will continue to grow and grow. and then we will be looking at a much bigger problem down the road. that is kind of how they see it. host: let me remind our view is that they can take part in the conversation. it will be regional lines. if you are in the eastern and central time zone, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001. .ext to (202) 748-8003 we are always reading on social media. can you give us a brief history of antifa in both the united states and around the world, michael? can you tell us how this began? guest: absolutely. this brief history, the roots of antifa go back to western europe in the 1920's and 30's. you had different groups -- 1930's. you had different groups of local activists in germany,

italy, britain and spain. those were kind of the main areas as well as other areas in which they were organizing to , mussolini'snazis black shirts in italy. mosley's british nationalist party in britain. and the fascists in spain. francos fascists in spain. in each one of these countries, rising fascists movements and anti-fascist groups formed in response to those rising fascist groups. ever since the beginning of anti-fascism, anti-fascism and fascism have always existed in some biosis. in far-righta rise fascist activity, you often see an increase in anti-fascist activity. it is the same way in the united

states. in the united states, back in the 1980's we saw a rise in the skinhead movement. local groups of political activists decided to organize and stop them. they actually came out of the punk rock scene, believe it or not. that was also a carryover from europe. the same thing was going on from britain and elsewhere. and in portland, there were a group of local activists who wanted to stop the hammer fest. hammer fest was a music festival organized by the hammer skin skinhead group or movement. activists succeeded in shutting hammer fest down. later, in 2007, they built on that energy and that experience to form a group that they called rose city antifa. to this day, rose city antifa

remains the oldest continuing antifa group in the united states. throughout the to thousands, , a numberefore trumpe of groups arose. another thing was the rise of antiracist groups. sometimes groups would decide in the united states, anti-fascist does not play that well. we will call ourselves antiracist action because that is more relevant in the united states. since that 1980's, there has been a number of groups organized that do not call themselves anti-fascist. they call themselves antiracist. there are larger, very loose networks organized in support of that. no centralized command in control. then, you have the rise of the alt-right movement. alt-right increased in

prominence, especially in mainstream politics, it galvanized anti-fascism in the united states, who felt that this is a very real threat to our way of life. it is no surprise that, after the election of donald trump, we saw a rise in anti-fascist activity in the united states. so, that is that brief history. host: let's go to the pole lines in goldenwith ken valley, arizona. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. what i wanted to say is it sounds like both of your guests this morning are coming from the same side. both of them tend to be defending antifa. host: i would not say -- guest: i would not say i am defending antifa. antifa does not like me. anarchists outed by

and i antifa -- and antifa. they actually don't like me. perspectivesol the that your viewers bring when program, but speaking for myself, i'm just this little academic social scientist try to understand these phenomena. allerld encourage the c to look at the war on the rocks wrote with my colleagues. i don't have a political agenda, other than i have a social scientific agenda, which is to understand what i consider to be a pretty fascinating phenomena. host: looks go to people calling -- let's go to eva. caller: i want three definitions. i want a legal definition of the far-left, far-right, not hillary clinton's definition, and i want

a definition of patriotism. i don't know who this man is and what he's up to, but i want these definitions. could you repeat the question? host: she said she wants you to give a definition of far-left and far-right and then a definition of patriotism. guest: so somebody on the far left would subscribe to political and social views that are commonly associated with ,ommunism, socialism, anarchism you know, there are far leftists who support environmental ideas. mean, again, there's a wide variety of groups that fit on the far end of the continuum. it is the same way on the far

right are the far-right would include groups like white supremacists, neo-nazis, , someads, militias militias are sometimes put over there. groups, often have ,n antigovernment focus especially anti-federal government. some far-right leave that any government above the county level is illegitimate and needs to be opposed. patriotism, to anothersm, i guess, is concept. folks on the far-right often ran youselves with the flag, know, and using terms, like some of the troops actually use the language of patriotism. they consider themselves patriots. but, of course, you have people on the left that also consider

themselves patriots. what is a patriot? somebody who believes in the fundamental values of their country, believing what their country stands for, but, again, that's tough, because what are the fundamental values of any given country that -- country? that changes over time and it depends on how you are brought up politically. you were raised in one household and taught to set -- believe a set of believes. if you're raised in a household in a different community, maybe you are taught by a slightly different set of beliefs, the both of those people would see themselves as patriots and pro america. is thing i'm very concerned the increased polarization of our country. it is not helping us. host: michael, president trump

back in may said this in a tweet, the united states will be designating antifa as a terrorist organization. one, has that been done, and two, who is responsible for making those designations, and, three, what would a designation like that mean? guest: ok. -- that hasesident not been done domestically. the terrorist organizations in the united states that have been formally designated are all foreign terrorist organizations that operate internationally, and some of them may have engaged in activities, including attacks and fundraising in the united states, so it's actually the u.s. that designates those foreign terrorist organizations.

the u.s. government at the federal level does not have formal statutes specifically devoted to domestic terrorism. we do have federal laws that touch on it, but no federal statute specifically devoted to domestic terrorism that would include provisions for designating specific groups as domestic terrorist organizations. so the president is not -- does have ther current law, power to designate them as a terrorist designation. some believe he could tap in to some of the existing federal statutes and do something to that effect. a lot of terrorism experts --

look, there is a certain element of political theater here. we have to understand what is happening within an election year. on both sides, there is a lot of politicized activity going on. our president has cited to run on a law and order platform. any central plank of his platform is to portray antifa as a domestic terrorist organization to get people riled up about them. but if you look at what antifa actually does, which we haven't really talked about, it's not terrorism. host: let's go to harry who is calling from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. good morning. watching have been antifa in portland and other people.ttacking elderly

you keep saying alt-right. there is no alt right here. it is a group of terrorists that should be condemned in the federal government should go and get them. this guy is long-winded and says nothing and you are a college professor? not help us. -- god help us review our despicable. guest: thank you for the call. i am glad we live in a country who are rehab the freedom to express our views. i appreciate -- i don't appreciate how you characterize me but i appreciate the engagement. again, i would encourage you rather than listen to what i'm saying, why not have a look at the war on the rocks piece that i mention. it is very easy to find.

it is bite me and my wonderful co-author. have a look and read it over and then decide for yourself. cee cee ins go to portland, oregon. caller: thank you for c-span. when you talk about extremism and the definition and fundamentally changing our society. martin luther king in the late john lewis was an extremist. if you are for black equality, in the 1960's and today, is an extremist view because it fundamentally changes society. so martin luther king wanting to have black rights and access to equal accommodations, that fundamentally changed american society. j edgar hoover and our fbi and cia considered martin luther king an extremist. nelson mandela was considered an extremist. when you look at today and you

talk about those with talking about racial disparity and black equality and human rights in society, that is an extremist idea. i just wanted to put that out there, that when you're talking about something less extreme, if you are talking about blacks having the same rights as other racial groups and even getting rid of that category and if you want to say get rid of that and characteristics surrounding that, that is extremist. host: go ahead and respond, michael. guest: that is a great point. look, we have a tradition in our country of achieving really important changes in our society by people who at the time were considered to be extremists. martin luther king is a great

example of that. martin luther king actually called himself an extremist and some of his writings. i think you're absolutely right. traditione is a proud of radical political organizing. you can be a radical and be peaceful. you can be an extremist and be peaceful. one of the great things about our country is we have the political space to do that. now there is a difference between people like martin luther king who was a peaceful extremist and violent extremists. malcolm x was summoning was important to the black nationalist movement -- was someone who was important to the black nationalist movement.

but those who are familiar with him know his writings were more one likethan some martin luther king. there is a difference between extremism and violent extremism. you can see this in many movements, whether tied to race or social justice issues, or whether they are tied to things like abortion, stuff like that. there are plenty of people in the abortion movement that are peaceful extremists, and then there are other people in the abortion movement that decide i'm going to go down and bomb that abortion clinic. they are violent extremists. a range of that in movement. to the original question, i have to agree with you. again, not all extremism is necessarily bad. it depends where you are coming from yourself politically,

frankly. ost: michael, you mentioned your article and i want to read something from it. this, interestingly, any push to terrorism among antifa supporters would likely be met by opposition from within the movement. many activists who accept the moral necessity of violence against what they see as an inherently violent fascist state welcome at the prospect of indiscriminate violence against innocent civilians. a lot of viewers would say what we are seeing on television doesn't hold up. guest: i am so glad you read that part, because it was one of the most important part of the article, and it was based on my own interviews with people who self identify as antifa supporters.

it was a really interesting finding for my research. for a lot of these people, when i say people, i mean antifa supporters come whether they are anarchists or not. , for them itters is really important for them to see their violence as distance ensive in nature. whether it is coming from the government or white supremacists, neo-nazis, they see themselves as my violence is ok, because i'm responding to this larger violence. my violence is defensive. individuals become very uncomfortable with the idea of offensive violence.

nature,not defensive in for example you do a bombing and you plan a bombing targeting civilians for a political purpose with the intent to terrorize, which is terrorism. many antifa supporters are uncomfortable with that idea and they view that as legitimate. in fact, this we sit incident -- this recent incident, i interviewed an antifa supporter after and it was interesting. if he telling me, look, truly was trying to protect him and his friend from being stabbed, then that would be defensive violence and that's legitimate. hunter, if he was on the and was looking for patriot

player activists to kill, that's not legitimate. that's illegitimate violence. it was interesting to me to hear this, and it's consistent with what other and for supporters have told me, which is why we argue in the piece that if antifa were to embrace in offensive- strategies, many people would be turned off. i am not saying antifa is about to do that. i don't think they are. wherethere was a story -- isuote -- saying if implicated in this case, it would mark the first time in recent years than in antifa supporter has been charged with homicide that is coming from the

center for the study of hate and extremism. do you agree with that? guest: as long as you meant in the united states. they have been some incidents in were supporters have shot and killed members of a far-right political party in greece. tendsope, antifa activism , at least the extreme forms, tend to be more violent. one thing the people are worried about now is whether we are starting to reach a tipping point in the united states. if we are talking about the einoehl is a watershed moment. you have someone who identifies as an antifa supporter who allegedly appears to have shot and killed somebody that he

identified on the far-right. there was an incident last year where you had another antifa i.c.e.ed an facility which may have been in oregon on, but before he could carry out his attack, he was shot and killed. i need to emphasize an important part. we have to be honest here. when we are talking about the far-left, these are fairly isolated incidents. if you look at the number of people killed by far-left extremists, that is antifa, anarchists, in the united states , the number over the last 10 to , thears or so, since 9/11

number is one. and it is the reinoehl shooting. the number of people killed in this country by folks on the far-right, that would include white supremacists, neo-nazis, militia, folks like that, is 114 are actually 117, which is pretty much on par thoughtt some people the he jihadi folks. for 100 versus one we have to put it in perspective. justin.o to caller: i am curious if there is any kind of connection or

lineage to the anarchist group in eugene, oregon that we saw in the 1990's to antifa today. guest: great question, justin. , the anti-globalization movement in the 1990's is considered one of the precursors of the antifa movement today. you are absolutely right to identify that. the anti-globalists, you have the punk rock scene in the 1980's, going after the skinheads. later on in the 1990's, you had the anti-globalization. then later on you had the occupy movement. what you sometimes see are individuals who are active in those earlier movements that now self-identify as and for supporters.

so you have people who were active in those earlier groups who are continuing to be active, but you also have a lot of younger people, people in the late teens and early 20's who are not active in the anti-globalization protests and were not active in occupy, but still have been influenced by that tradition. they still hear the stories. they still go to the websites and read the pieces and other things, and they are kind of influenced by the larger culture. you are right to identify that as an influence. host: let's go to charles in texas. good morning. caller: i would like to say this, the cofounder of black lives matter said in a 2015 interview that she is indeed a

trained marxist. your definition of far-left and far-right, you said marxist are far-left. as far as i'm concerned, she wants to take this country down. she is a communist. we have them in our government. we have them fighting trump right now that are left over from obama. i would like your comment on that. could you sorry, repeat the question. host: he said that one of the founders of black lives matter said in an interview that he read that she was a marxist. he wanted to know about the connection between groups like black lives matter and antifa. guest: ok. all, i want to make the point that i'm not an expert on black lives matter.

i have engaged in research on antifa and anarchism worldwide. mind,h that caveat in there are antifa supporters, even anarchists that go to black -- matterer tests protests. i have seen it myself. localis overlap at the organizational level. that doesn't mean they are the same organization. it doesn't mean that anti-foot is somehow corrupting the black lives matter movement. -- a lot ofanta antifa supporters are very conscious of their white privilege and they are very sensitive to being portrayed as trying to take over black lives matter. they think it's very important not to do that.

earlier aboutg antifa, my point about how people in antifa as believing a variety of political ideologies. you have your commonest, social communists,your socialists, and liberals. i would suspect that in the very large and very diverse movement, you're going to have people -- it's the same thing. you're going to have people who self-identify as marxists, but you also have people who self-identify as liberals. a lot will self-identify as democrats. these are large social movements. you have to remember that you are just going to see a tremendous amount of variety in the political beliefs by people who are willing to get out there

and support those movements. host: one of the things we have not talked about is -- how does the american government, state and city governments stop the violence? guest: rate question. -- great question. we have to de-escalate the rhetoric. we have to try and reverse some of the polarization. localk you have a lot of political leaders in portland and elsewhere that are trying to deescalate. people are upset. look at what is going on in the country. it is understandable. black people continue to be killed disproportionately by the police. it's a reality. covid-19 is a reality. people are losing their jobs.

they are upset. i get it. where is this increased polarization going to take us? what kind of country do we want to live in? there are people talking about it's going to get worse now. where are we headed? we have to come to gather -- come together as a society. we are a lot more alike than we are different. we are all americans. we all want to live in stable, prosperous societies where our kids can go to school in which we can get a decent job and have access to health care. let's focus on what we want together instead of focusing so much on the differences that divide us? our national political leaders should stop seeking to divide us. we are all one country and we do

better we come together, not stand apart. host: let's go to miriam from texas. caller: good morning. unfortunately, we have a very and there are 5 million viewers per day and they are constantly feeding races viewers imagery of black protesters with black clothing, toks, and they're trying confuse the protesters with antifa. i think this is a disservice. i am wondering if this is a very dangerous thing to do with the viewers. sure, could you repeat the question? host: she was wondering about

fox news and their coverage of antifa and how dangerous you think that is or if you think that's dangerous? is.t: i think it we have to understand what is happening right now in our country. again, we are in an election year. we have a president that has decided, rightly or wrongly, that he is going to run on a law and order platform. a central part of that is portraying antifa as this existential threat to our political system. that is what he is trying to do. fox news largely supports that agenda. so they are willing to amplify that narrative, which is why you see fox news continually portray

mobfa as this terrorist intent on destroying our way of life. and it is unfortunate, because it is leading to world implications like just this week in oregon. antifa started the wildfires. it is nonsense. it is not true. antifa.is no friend of the fbi has come out and said this is not true. there is so much misinformation out there. we have to be really careful of the information we are consuming. we don't know what the source of it is all the time and what's the agenda behind it. incidents where people have been told, go to

this place, because there is going to be an antifa protest that generates all this activity. it turned out to be antifa supporters that were just doing hoaxes. amplifyingthat the of this narrative is very to worldte and leading implications that can be dangerous. host: we would like to thank michael kenny, who is a professor at the university of pittsburg for being with us and helping us understand more about antifa. michael, thank you so much for your time. guest: thank you so much for the opportunity to engage. i appreciate it. host: coming up, we are going to switch and talk about the devastating west coast wildfires. you see the number on the screen. you have a special number if you are impacted by the fire on the west coast.

stick with us. we will be right back. ♪ american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. weekend, tonight, a look at world war i and the environment with the co-editor of environmental histories of world war i. he will discuss the ecological impact the first world war had across the globe and how it went far beyond physical changes to european battlefields, shifts in agricultural production, and the displacement of wildlife and humans. yale'say, here about first female students after it opened its doors to women in 1969 the first time in its

history with and gardner perkins. onn, at six clock p.m. american artifacts, explore the newly completed dwight d. eisenhower memorial located near the u.s. capitol and set for dedication. at 7:00 p.m., watched the 1960 presidential debate between john f. kennedy and richard nixon. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span-3. "washington journal" continues. host: we will spend our last segment of the show talking about the west coast wildfires that are continuing to rage. especially, i want to hear from people who are being impacted on the west coast by these devastating wildfires. the wall street journal had a story this morning on the impact of the wildfires.

i want to read a paragraph from that to you to set the stage. this story comes from september 10. there were at least 85 large, uncontained fires burning in california, oregon, washington, and other western states on thursday, according to the national fire center. a record burning for the year. six of the top 20 largest fires in state history have occurred has neverd oregon seen so many uncontained fires at once. governor kate brown said on twitter. more than 900,000 acres have burned already compared to an average of 500,000 a year for the past decade.

if you're impacted, want to hear from you at (202) 748-8002. let's start with jim calling from georgia. caller: good morning. i am wondering if methane has an impact on these fires. methane bubbling up from the ocean because the earth ofwarming and there is a lot methane and permafrost. as the climate warms, that permafrost releases the methane and i wonder if these wildfires are being fueled in part by this methane that's been released from the oceans and from the permafrost. joni callingo to from nevada. joanne, but joni is

ok, i can do that. i have been calling for four years about this issue. it is land management. they have never cleaned their land once they let the environmentalists took over. they took logging off, they took grazing off and they don't take care of their land, and that is what is fueling the fire. it is amazing that it is in california, oregon, and washington. dohasn't hit me yet, but i n smokefrom the dam and if they don't clean it it will hurt our air quality in nevada. host: i'm going to read to you from story. the collective scale of the infernos that is starred state is staggering. at least 19 fatalities, tens of

thousands of structures destroyed, and more than 3.1 million acres burned, the most since augustear 16. the loss has been most profound from a fire in butte county, which is now blamed for nine deaths, placing it among the deadliest in state history according to the california department of four street and fire protection. we want to know what you think about the west coast wildfires continuing to rage. from --eak to her nata but speak to renata from ohio. caller: the governor has not done his job. i saw him standing out there talking about, oh, my gosh, it has to do with oh, what's it called that there always talking about?

i'm so old i can't think of what it is. at any rate, he just hasn't done his job. they should have cut back on all of this junk on the floor and up around the wires. what is going on? it is year after year after year, it is the same thing. then there was the couple that they hadarty to see if a boy or a girl, and that started some of it. .t is just ridiculous it is absolutely ridiculous that california can't find its way. just stop this nonsense. host: let's go to michael calling from dixon, tennessee. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to point out by studying the map you posted a minute ago, from washington down to the mexican border that there seems to be a pattern to the

fires. i've noticed this before. i believe there has been an awful lot of vitriol on the right against california and the liberal west as they call it in general. i think fires are being set on ,urpose for political means speaking to the last interview you had about domestic terrorism. i think this is an act of domestic terrorism by the all right to burn the west coast down to take the liberal influence out of american politics. kind of tinfoil hat, but, you know, there are a lot of crazy people in the world that justify a lot of crazy actions. i think that should be taken a look at. host: let's go to brenda calling from manchester, washington. are you in a safe place and ok? caller: yes, i am safe.

everybody on the west coast is impacted. when i look across the sound, i haven't seen seattle days. smoke is everywhere. i can't comprehend people in the smoke and have had everything destroyed. and i am angry and tired of hearing people chastise the west that this is happening because we're not taking care of it. it is climate change, people. get a grip. i am just furious with hearing these calls. i have to calm down. hear.just so maddening to is coming. it everyone watches it and it gets all this attention. and then when it comes to landfall, even the people who don't leave their homes we feel sorry because they need to be are in an area

subject to wildfires. and they are destroying our land and our people and our way of life, and it is just so sad. host: let's go to kelly calling from california. are you safe and ok? caller: i am safe where i am. immediately i'm safe, but long-term, who knows what the impacts are? the previous callers as far as not managing the land, a good portion of the land is u.s. federal forest. it is just ridiculous to not listen to the science. you guys on the east coast have a lot of flooding, what is that excuse?

the three top things contributing to climate change and increases in the temperature and more extremes and occurrences all over the world as far as hurricanes and typhoons and the flooding and the more extreme fires, the three top things are eating meat andrning fossil fuels, overpopulation of humans. host: we will show you what space.ires look like this is an image of the smoke going out over the ocean from the west coast. this is an amazing shot. that is not clouds. that is just smoke coming from the west coast. let's go back to the phone lines and talk to larry who is calling

from idaho. caller: good morning, sir. if i want to know about fires i try to talk to people who deal with fires. up here, i am a transplant from california. firefighters to and smoke jumpers and such. they will tell you that california does not manage their forest. you are not allowed to clear brush. there is no logging or grazing. people at fire science and fire administration and firefighting and they will tell you, california is the example the professors use to demonstrate how not to do things. these people that are yelling about global warming, they are the same cross-section of our community that were yelling about global cooling in the

1990's. people had a legal standing in court and the government didn't have a leg to stand on. there is were the only houses that survived. their neighbors obeyed the law and didn't clear the brush. methane.hing about when heat goes across a pasture or up the hill and encounters sagebrush, sage brush will emit methane. gas, but itxpert on has many sources. but with sagebrush, you will see

the fireballs as the heat those up and it is spontaneous combustion. callingt's go to jimbo from bakersfield, california. once again, are you somewhere safe and are you ok? caller: well, we have just the worst air that anyone could possibly breathe. again, these are microscopic particles that get sucked into your lungs right into the blood system. your body is using this virus. i would hate to think of the white blood cell count of the people living in this cloud. i am an environmental scientist and i want to make sure everyone knows that america is not have forest. we have tree plantations in our national forests. what i'm talking about is -- it is no different than growing rows of corn. a forest is a diverse collection of many different species of

many different ages. invite everyone to do is go to google maps satellite and go to the areas which are burning. monocultures.g at these are not diverse collections. they are areas that have been logged over and over again. that is part of the problem. not only do we have climate change, but we have abused her and hessian forests -- our national forests. as you drive along interstate five or alum 101, and you -- or fast patchyou see quotes of areas which have been cut and monocultures put in place. these places are so vulnerable for that. there used to be a pine called

the jeffrey pine that takes a long time to grow. it is really fire resistant. along with climate change, what we need to understand is this -- we have climate change, tree plantations, we do not have forests. we have people living in places where they are surrounded by these tree plantations. thee, thank you so much for opportunity to get that out and for the service you provide to the american public. mark callingo to from washington. once again, are you ok and are you somewhere safe? caller: yes, we are safe heavily inundated with smoke. that this is all because of the horrible americans and our practices and man-made global

warming. i just want to remind them that our earth has been changing for four and a half million years. this is nothing new. outact, an indian tribe put a memoir and part of that was when general sherman came through on his expedition in 1878 and established a fort in idaho and went through the andhern part of washington his group camped about 10 miles .est of where i live he commented on the horrible smoke in the fires and they couldn't breathe. they were choking and he said it was the most godforsaken place he had ever been in in his life and he could not wait to get back to the fort he had

established in idaho. this was in the late 1870's. this has been going on and on. yes, our forests have been horribly mismanaged, because of the environmentalist push. i know that for a fact. there is so much trash on the florist -- on the forest floor and it is ridiculous because under clinton and obama would not allow any logging. this is just tender that is tinder that is waiting to spark. in our area we had three anarchists who started a fire just near walmart. at fire went 60 miles in six hours, because we had hurricane force winds backing it. it killed two people so far. the other two are in the burn hospital over in seattle at

harborview. a good portion of the city of brewster and bridgeport have been ruined and burned down. some of this stuff is indeed man-made. your previous guests that you had on that said anarchists can only be a tribute in with one death, now they have two more. callingt's go to lewis from salisbury, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse and c-span. condolences to the people in the fires. my prayers are with them. you have a lot of people coming in trying to put a name on different people, but they don't seem like they had the humanity involved or some type of loving in their heart. through -- ito go

pray for you and i know god will keep you in his hands. keep strong and make it through willand i'm sure god reveal. stop watching fox. you have no compassion. -- the trumps followers are so angry. notse pray for the people, just on the west coast, but on the east coast. we have hurricanes and tornadoes in the middle of the state. and all you care is that they are not vacuuming the fire brush . people, get real. host: the previous caller brought up the question of who was setting fires on the west coast and whether anarchists and extremists were responsible, the

fbi put out a statement. in oregon joined local law enforcement in saying they have investigated reports and found no evidence that extremist groups are responsible for the numerous fires in the northwest. the fbi office should the localent, fbi and agencies have received reports that extremist set fires. the fbi has investigated several such reports and found them to be untrue. let's go back to the phone lines and talk to lauren calling from maryland. hello, good morning. i just wanted to comment, because a lot of people keep mentioning something about the raking of the forest. it is a ridiculous concept. we have tree branches that are falling all day every day. so to rake the forest would take thousands of people and that would be a major, full-time job.

a lot of people are listening to trump when it comes to things like this, because he mentioned that. he said that the people of finland did that, although the people of finland had no idea what he was talking about. so people, wake up. you can't rake a forest. host: let's talk to bill calling --m raboso i'm in new mexico new mexico. caller: i am a retired firefighter in one of the biggest problems i see these days with the firefighting agencies. the department of interior has five of them. the department of agriculture has one, forest service. when all of these different agencies get together with the different policies, nothing gets done, especially when a fire gets big early. it is a big cluster when they get there, because somebody is

following their protocol from back home. take the guys from green mountains up in maine somewhere and they show up in socal and it takes them a week and a half to get committed to the fire. we need to get busy with this firefighting business and we need to do it on a national scale, not every individual agency. a lot of money involved. the american public doesn't even know. a lot of the agencies have stood down now that it is fall in new mexico, and they should be over there giving a hand. host: let's talk to phyllis who is calling from california. once again, are you somewhere safe and are you ok? caller: yes, i am safe and i am not ok. area,n a relatively safe

but the smoke is just horrendous. it is just unbelievable. so freaked outre because we woke up to an orange sky. it was beautiful, but it looked like mars or some other planet. ash, whichowing doesn't seem as bad if you walk smell theu don't smoke the weight we did before. ash is giving off particles that are supposed to be very dangerous to the lungs. health. in good my lungs are being impacted by this, my eyes. i have nottunate been evacuated and i don't

anticipate that i will. as far as mismanagement of california, one point that has not been brought up is the public -- or the pacific gas and electric company has been mismanaged for years. they have not kept up with the maintenance of getting rid of trees falling over electrical lines. impacted.y has i would love to leave california if i could and many people are. host: let's go to edward calling from fort ashby, west virginia. with the global warming thing, it's kind of like people pick an agenda with a political side which they are on.

the democrats are pushing global warming thing. i understand that we have to take care of the planet and it is terrible what is going on in california, but my mom taught me when i was a kid that you don't play with matches in a forest. it is common sense to understand that the world goes through cycles. there are times when it is hot in times when it is cold. that is just how the world is. america running the , you with global warming can't have an industry and be affording to feed all these countries and not have greenhouse effect. there are just more people on this planet now. publicized and people are trying to make a million dollars off of it.

the government, as far as the democratic side, it is global warming and global warming. theyey really felt that are concerned about it, then wouldn't it take funding? take like defunding the police, take that money and help out california. i am just confused, because it is terrible and there might be global warming, but the earth goes through changes but it is more publicized because people are making money. host: i want to point out the map we have of the fires currently raging on the west coast. you see all the way up california up to washington fires also now we see moving inland in both idaho and

montana. the fires are almost completely covered although it up the west coast, but also moving through idaho and montana. we will see if we can get a few more calls in. let's go to peter, who is nameng from pronounce the of yorktown in michigan. negani, michigan. host: go ahead. caller: with respect to equipment, we need new equipment to fight these fires such as machines that can throw sand at the fire rather than water to extinguish them quicker. we need to have faster ways to put the fire out with sand rather than water. they need equipment that will blow the sand at the flames and knock it down quicker.

that is just my opinion but it is something they should look .nto ast: we had a viewer show orange sky they were talking about. you can see that orange sky they were talking about with the devastating fires going up and down the west coast. let's talk to dale calling from iowa. just like told thank you for what you do and with all the people in the fires, i hope they are all right. i live in iowa and have lived here for approximately 60 years. host: dale, are you there? caller: yes, i am.

host: go ahead. caller: i have lived here for 60 years and we just had a drought that was unbelievable this year, too. we think all of these things are part of global warming scenarios. these people that don't believe in it, i don't know where they're coming from. next they just haven't had a natural disaster. we have had hail and all kinds of things going on that is crazy. host: we would like to think all callersollars and -- and viewers. we want all of the viewers to stay safe. join us again for another edition of "washington journal." see you next time. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ ♪

>> this week on q&a, richard horton, editor in chief of the u.k.-based medical journal the lancet discusses his book "the covid-19 catastrophe. >> we will have to figure out a phase get past this acute . we will. it is going to take some years, though. there are two ways to help reduce the risk. one is the vaccine, but that is only part of the solution. the other is the idea that came up earlier on in the pandemic which was absolutely not the way to manage it. but in the long-term, it is very important, and that is herd

immunity. the more people can build up immunity to the virus, but will then reduce the possibility of there being these academic or -- outbreaks. pandemic but that will not happen this year or next year or the year after, it will take several years for that to take place, so we are in this the long haul. ,> the lancet's richard horton on c-span q&a. >> with the ongoing pandemic in many schools shifting to online learning, c-span studentcam competition continues to engage in a national conversation, asking high-school students to produce a documentary exploring the issues they must want the president and the congress to address in 2021. >> [indiscernible] >> invested in giving americans

--. it needs reform. >> when the youth are given the opportunity and the skills to become informed voters and engaged citizens, results happen, because democracy must be learned. >> from waiting long for legal documents, to tumultuous -- citizenship, the immigration many. fails >> this year we are awarding $100,000 in prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000. is deadline to submit videos january 20, 2021. for competition rows and more information on how to get started, go to our website, studentcam.org. >> the ceo of by amtrak said the nations rail service needs $4

billion to stay afloat for fiscal year 2021. he made the comments in testimony before the house transportation subcommittee on railroads. >> the subcommittee will come to order. i ask unanimous consent that the chair declare a recess at any time during today's hearing. >> without objection so ordered. i also ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at today's hearing and ask questions. without objection so ordered. this is a hybrid hearing. i want to remind members of key regulations from the house committee on rules to ensure that the hearing goes smoothly. members must be visible on screen for the purposes of identification when joining this hearing. members must also continue to use the video function on today's software platform cisco web-x for the remainder of the