a -- news radio app. we're on the radio every weekday 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. eastern time. we'll have another great tv show for you next week on fox business. in the meantime, i hope you'll join me on the radio. good even. that y thank you for being with us. president obama today astonished most republicans and many in his own party when you stated that he did not set a red line on syrian use of chemical weapons. president obama said that the world instead had set a red line and asserted further that his credibility is not as stake now, as many of both his critics and supporters have suggested. president obama said his credibility is not at issue either. but rather, the credibility of congress itself. the white house issuing the red line ultimatum to syrian president assad at least seven times over the past year.

we'll be taking all of this up and considering why the president is suddenly trying to pass responsibility for his own ultimatums and threats to assad, and his decision to authorize punishment with foreign affairs committee member congressman ted yohu who pressed secretary of state john kerry on the president's plans in a hearing held today. the syrian resolution passes the senate foreign affairs committee after members capitulated to the demands of senator john mccain. neral davigrain joins us to assess the strike plan but we begin tonight with the latest on the president's pitch on military strikes against syria and another attempt to distance himself from his own decision. the presidnt today actually put the responsibilityn the international community. here's mr. obama earlier today in stockholm, sweden.

>> i didn't set a red line. the world set a red line. my credibility is not on the line, the international community's credibility is on the line. and america and congress' credibility is on the line. do i hold out hope that mr. putin may change his position on some of these issues? i'm always hopeful. >> and for his part, president putin claimed that russia does not exclude supporting a u.n. resolution on punitive strikes against syria, if they are provided with evidence that they decide proves assad is actually guilty of using chemical weapons against his own people. all of this before calling secretary of state kerry a liar for his denial of al qaeda involvement with the syrian opposition. putin said, quote, this was very unpleasant and surprising for

me. we talk to them, the americans, and we assume they are decent people. but he is lying and he knows that he is lying. this is sad. kerry today making the u.s. military sound like a mercenary force during his testimony for the tot hou the house foreign ai committee. listen to this. >> with respect to to arab countries offering to bear costs and assist with answers, profoundly yes, they have. that offer is on the table. >> our next guest hasn't been persuaded by the president nor today the arguments of secretaries kerry and hagel or general dempsey, irrespective of his decision. here to discuss the hearing, congressman ted yoho a member of the house foreign affairs committee. congressman, great to have you with us. it was interesting, listening to general dempsey be concise, i

was thinking i'd rather he be more expansive and the others perhaps before the committee be less so. your reaction to today's hearing. >> my reaction today -- the reaction today is it didn't change my opinion. i see no need to get involved in a civil war, a sectarian civil war in another country. especially a muslim to muslim civil war. what happens when you have western include in that, it just changes the whole dynamics. this is a civil war that has gone on for three and a half years. for us to intervene now when the chemical weapons have been reported to being used over 11 times in the last, say, year and a half, my question is why now and why us? where's the rest of the world? you know, this all goes back to the cwc agreement that had been signed and ratified or revamped approximately three or four times since 1924. that stated that any country that produces, transports,

stores or sells chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction are in violation, and so this has been going on, if you go back to theraq war, it's been used probably 20 times since then. i just question the motive of right now and america acting out in the lead of this. i think it's wrong for america. >> is it what you perhaps are in the frame o mind to say wait a minute to all of these folks? you're talking about the arabs paying for an american invasion in syria, talking about no allies whatsoever in this, no authority from any one of the institutional organizations, nato, the united nations, the arab league, that would give at least -- at least the inprimitor of some sort of authority to carry this out.

for all the world, we look like we're mercenaries here. we looks though we're a vigilante nation because we don't have color of law. >> lou, i agree 100% with you. that was one of my questions to mr. kerry. we're talking -- we're talking about attacking a sovereign nation that did not attack america, and they're talking about it would be a surgical strike if we drop bombs here and there, people will die from that. my question is if another country did that to us, would we not view that as a military or act of aggression, act of war. i think resoundingly we would. we don't have the constitutional authority to attack another country for that reason. if it was a national security threat, which i don't feel this is, i think it's a tremendously horrible thing that's happening over there and i would love for it to be brought to a peaceful or diplomatic resolve. this is where our foreign policy, i think, has been askew, it's been off track.

i've seen it more in the last five years. i followed the middle east for the last 15 to 20 years. what i've seen in the last five years, there's this state of confusion, and many members today say they were confused. and i think the world is confused, i tnk our allies are confused and the american people are confused why we're going in there. 98% of -- go ahead. >> you describe all of that confusion and there's only one nation being asked to commit its forces to hostilities of conflict and that's the united states. >> i agree. >> and the way you describe it, we're the most confused nation on the planet. >> and look where that comes from. you have the presidt drawing a red line in august. john kerry even said that. >> but the president said today he didn't draw any red line, absolutely flat out denied it. >> john kerry in march and april said there was a red line drawn that the president said if they crossed it was going to change thedynamic. today and yesterday heard there was a red line drawn. in addition to that, this is about regime change. this is not about regime change.

the confusion just keeps coming. people wonder why the world is confused on what america is going to do. what we need to do is we need to lead by example. there's 189 countries that have signed the cwc resolution or agreement. i want to know where the other 188 are. we give foreign aid to a lot of these countries. we need to demand that they come to the table and we sit there on one side and we get president assad on the other side and we have a peaceful resolution to this. and i don't think we've gone that route. the thing i'm encouraged about is that russia said if the results were conclusive, they would ask for a u.n. resolution and to sit down. i think if we can do that, there's no reason to rush into this. i think diplomatic solutions are a better way. this is a way for america to lead on foreign policy and a redirection of foreign policy, especially in the middle east. we can win this. it can be done with diplomacy and not with bombs and guns.

>> and i think we always -- and i am delighted that you are amongst those being cautious and leadg on the issue. >> well, thank you. >> because this is not a time for people to rush to conflict. it's unseemly for a superpower, we're the world's only superpower, it seems to me, to act because this is a nation, a small nation, that we could attack and inflict damage with impunity. just because we have the power and the technology to do so certainly does not warrant a smug response on our part and a disdain for the damage and the pain and the depth that would result. that is on us. >> i agree. i think back -- i think back what my dad said as kids growing up. anybody can fight. it takes a man to deal with diplomacy and talk and work through a conflict like that. and i think this is time for us to man up and do what's right. >> man up, woman up, however we

want to describe it. we have had a five-year opportunity under this president to have built a solid and certainly more cordial relationship with a great nation, russia, which would be very helpful at this particular chance. this particular moment. and the chance for that, of course, is waning rapidly. >> it sure is. >> congressman, thanks for webeg here, we appreciate it. >> thank you, sir. the constitutionality of the president's authority to attack syria is one of the hottest topics in the senate armed services committee today. senator rand paul challenged the secretary of state on precisely that issue. >> i want to be proud of the present, but every time i'm just about there, then i get worried that really he doesn't mean it, that he's going t sort of obey the constitution if he wins. so i heard senator kerry say if we win, sure. but if we lose, what?

i mean make me proud today, secretary kerry. stand up for us and say you're going to obey the constitution. if we vote you down, which is unlikely by the way, but if you do, you would go with what the people say through their congress and you wouldn't go forward with a war that your congress votes against. can you give me a better answer, secretary kerry? >> i can't give you a different answer than the one i gave you. i don't know what t president's decision is. but i will tell you this, it ought to make you proud because he still has the constitutional authority and he would be in keeping with the constitution. >> i disagree with you there. i don't believe he has the constitutional authority. i think congress has this. madison was very explicit when he wrote the federalist papers. he wrote that history supposes -- or the constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most likely to go to war and, therefore, the constitution vested that power in the congress. it's explicit and runs throughout a of madison's

writings. this power is a congressional power and it is not an executive power. >> joining us now, fox news legal analyst, elisewheel. great to see you. i thought that was a terrific exchange between the senator and the secretary of state. >> it was. >> and in precise language, he's exactly correct about the powers of declaring war, where they reside. >> right. >> and now we have something called a war powers act. >> right, 1973. >> 1973. >> a resolution that was passed which said to the president, basically you have a window, president, of about 60 to 90 days. you've got to go to congress. not for a war, not declaring war, but going in in a hostile environment, in hostilities. that's the word that is used here. you have to report to report to congress and then you have 60 days and you can reup that with congress for another 90 days. if congress doesn't accept what you're doing, you've got to pull

all troops out, stop and cease unless this congress declares war itself. >> this president has sanid and his administration has said we should attack syria but he wants the approval of congress. but implicit in that although it's not stated is that he's made the decision to do so. therefore, because we should, he will, but he wants the approval of congress. what if he doesn't get the approval? >> i think that's a political cover rather than a legal cover. as we just talked about, he has the legal cover. he does not need to go to congress -- >> he's done so. >> right, but he did not need to do that. >> but having done so -- >> but now if congress says no, he can still go back to the war powers act. my reading of it -- >> so what you're saying is it's farce. >> i'm saying it's political cover. clearly if he wanted to go under the war powers act, he would never have had to go to congress. >> so you're really saying that senator paul is exactly right. what we're witnessing here is

political theater in the guise of a president -- >> it becomes not a political cover, if he gets congressional approval, he doesn't have to go through the war powers act. that at that point would be asking -- here's the question, would be asking congress then to actually, you know, state that this is a war as opposed to hostility. >> when you attack a country, no matter your superiority militarily orlly, you are committing an act of war. there is no wiggle room in that. >> but there was wiggle room -- >> we are committing an act of war. >> but there was wiggle room with president bush and iraq. that was the whole big legal issue, he did not declare war. all of these issues did we have war criminals, all of that, geneva treaty -- >> just consider this possibility. the 1973 war powers act has never been challenged and gotten to the supreme court. >> right.

>> this would be -- it would be interesting. this would give, it would seem to me, the senate and the house standing to sue the president and to take it before the supreme court to see whether or not the war powers act itself is constitutional. >> exactly, because -- and i think y're right on that because what he did did, other president did, other presidents have gnaw, he went to congress. he wants his cake and eat it to. he went to congress rather than going unilaterally, coming back to that 60 to 90-day rule rather than going it alone. that's what he could have done very clearly, very legally. now if congress comes up and says no, then you're right. we're at the stalemate does he go back to the act that he could followed from the beginning. >> i think that this may have the law of unintended consequences. this may be one time in which that law of unintended consequences benefits the law itself, in this case the constitution. because to me it is clearly, as a matter of common sense, judgment in american history and the purpose of our founders.

the 1973 war powers act is an abomination. >> but there's precedence for it. our presidents have gone in. >> president after president has participated in things of all kinds, not just constitutional ones. but the fact is this might have a very positive result. >> well, and only in your estimation if congress does not give approval for that one strike. >> i'm kind of like that. if things are right in my estimation, they seem really right to me. >> well, we'll see if it ends with the supreme court then, lou, right? >> we'll see. let's hope so. >> we'll follow it there. >> i'll hope so. thanks. we appreciate it as always. president obama says the red line isn't his. he said he wants a limited proportional military strike against syria. is there such a military strategy? we ask the expert, former commander of the first infantry

joining me now is general david grange, retired u.s. army brigadier general, former commander of the first infantry division along with many distinguished commands. general, great to have you with us. let me start with your thoughts about a limited proportional strike. is this the kind of thing that military leaders like to hear as the outline of a way in which an action will be taken? >> no, it's not what commanders like to hear. in fact if you can't define the results that you want, the effects to be gained properly and then apply what means that it would take to do that, it really doesn't mean much at all.

the strike, if it happens, must be done with the right mix of force and capability at the right time and place of our choosing. now it's too late. now we ought to stand by and strike only if necessary, demanding on the conditions. >> and your reaction to the mccain amendment, if we could put that up. in part it reads it is the policy of the united states to change the momentum on the battlefield in syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends a conflict and leads to a democratic government in syria. general, your reaction. >> well, first of all, i don't believe -- who is assad going to negotiate with? which rebel force? and so either point, do you go with assad or do you go with a rebel group. unless it's one that supports your principles, you lose either way. so i would not get involved in

that whatsoever. i would want involved in humanitarian assistance in jordan, in turkey. i would take measures to protect jordan, turkey and israel from a spillover in that region. this country -- well, you look at jordan as an example, between syria and between egypt, both basket cases. so there is some strategic reasons to maintain stability, but not by a limited strike. >> and further complicating it, general jack keene with whom i spoke last night, pointed out that in geographical terms, the east and the west is controlled by extremists as is the eastern part of syria and between our, quote unquote, moderate elements of the opposition all sitting well above damascus, of course, in the southern part of the country. this is a maddening feature for

a military that has to carry out strikes. this is going to be very difficult by any measure, is it not? >> it is. and again, it has to be defined targets with objectives that have effects that support o strategy, support the united states and its allies. so again, humanitarian assistance or positioning forces tied to jordan, israel and turkey are what's key, not just striking for revenge or because of a statement made previously that it's too late to enforce. so it's not -- limited strikes are not going to do anything now for our benefit. >> our commanders will, of course, follow the orders of their commander in chief, but to put our military in the position of going into a unilateral operation like this, with this

administration talking about arabs unnamed states offering to pay for a full-on invasion of syria and at the same time acting without color of at least consensus of international authority, this puts this united states, this administration, this commander in chief in a position of behaving, like it seems to me, not like a cop of the world but a vigilante. your reactions, your thoughts. >> well, i don't think the united states should do this alone. we need to have some kind of a coalition. obviously some type of agreement between china, russia, syria, maybe to some extent ira there could be things done coertly against his poezbollah iran. we ought to have -- even if it's a secret coalition, some type of coalition. but just by supporting jordan,

israel and turkey, we've established some type of cooperation. and some type of help of the population that's going to suffer from any kind of a strike. and i don't think there's any problem with that type of response, that type of boots on the ground or that type of air support if necessary. >> general, thanks as always. good to have you with us. up next, no foreign coalition to speak of, little support from the american public. president obama pushing congress apparently with some sucss to let him attack syria. i'll show you why syria is primed to be another obama foreign policy failure. stay with thank you orville and wilbur... ...amelia... neil and buzz: for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging to the past. and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below...

to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it.

well, we've been talking to you about the president's plans to get congressional approval for a strike against syria. we'll have to wait to see whether he succeeds on that. one thing is already clear, he does require congressional backing because right now he's standing alone, not only at home but internationally. just take a look at where some of america's closest allies stand right now on that strike against syria that the president is seeking approval for. britain's parliament last week

voted against military action in seyria syria. they are not participating. they are absolutely ruling out another vote on the issue even. germany. germany says it's out of the conflict no matter what, partly because their elections are under three weeks away. and that leaves france as our only potential aly in an attack on syria. france's president said today he's waiting for a decision from congress on syria before he would act in any way. as for our enemies, it sounds like a strong word. they're certainly not keeping quiet. syria is definitively an enemy because this president wants to attack them. that makes it pretty clear. it's a harsh word, isn't it, enemy, but that's precisely what syria now is. as our commander in chief has declared them to be. president assad for his part called president obama weak in a new interview with a french publication, and of course president obama has said get

out. so iran, an enemy and hezbollah in lebanon, threatening payback and reprisals for both the united states and israel if president obama orders attacks against syria. and russia, enemy? that is precisely the way this president is talking, thinking and now acting. and the leaders of russia are mocking the obama administration, which has yet to be coherent or explicit in its rationale in its strike against syria. president vladimir putin is reportedly thinking of sending a delegation to our nation's capital later this week to lobby our congress to vote against such a strike. just a word of advice, mr. president. listen to the american people first. six in ten of whom oppose your idea to strike against syria. that's according to the newest washington post/abc poll. mr. president, you promised a

limited, proportionate strike against syria. but critics remember your bravado on libya when you said intervention there would last days, not weeks or months. that intervention, if we may remind you, lasted six months, not days, and cost nearly $2 billion. president obama defiant. he says it will be a limited proportional strike against syria. colonel oliver north and jrchlts t ♪ nascar is about excitement. but tracking all the action and hearing everything from our marketing partners, the media and millions of fans on social media can be a challenge. that's why we partnered with hp to build the new nascar fan and media engagement center. hp's technology helps us turn millions of tweets, posts and stories into real-time business insights that help nascar

win with our fans.

the obama administration's attempt to win approval from congress on the proposed strike by this administration against syria, he claims that the consequences of inaction would be greater than the consequences of a military strike. joinnng us now, colonel oliver north, fox news military

analyst, host of "war stories" and former pentagon official, fox news national security analyst, k.t. mcfarland. let's start with the consequences of not acting be greater than not acting, k.t. i've heard this somewhere along the way. the only thing missing is the domino theory. >> i watched those hearings today. they laid out the case of why we should do something but they didn't say how we were going to do it. they haven't identified what the objectives are. are they to deter, degrade? how is some military strike that is kimtd before you even start it going to succeed? d what happens if now that we take military action, this limited action, assad calls obama's bluff one more time, just like he did over the red line. what happens then? does obama say, okay, i'll see you and raise you and we get involved in a lbj vietnam war

type escalation? >> why is the president not talking to the american people here? we see secretary kerry, defense secretary hagel, we see spokesmen for all of the above. but the president himself is not making a case to the american people to use -- to use our military power against the sovereign nation, no matter how heinous their leadership. >> when olly north and i were in the reagan administration. when president reagan wanted to make a point, he went before the american people. when he wanted the defense spending to be raised. what he wanted to talk about arms control, he always went to congress and the american people directly. >> let me ask you, colonel, what is the point of being the commander in chief if you're not going to address the american people on these issues? this is not some trivial matter, is it? >> no. no, it is not trivial at all, lou. and think about this, john kerry, the former anti-war, anti-military activist is now

the leading hawk of the obama team. it's also clear they're making it up as they go along. you just pointed out a moment ago that you heard a lot from him but you saw hagel and the chairman, but you didn't hear much from them. whe senator corker asked why no support since authorized by the president back in june, kerry and hagel both waffled. the hagel said the authorization -- in fact the objective is to deter assad from using chemical weapon degrading his capability and sending a message to other terrorists about weapons of mass destruction. then they went on to say it's going to be limited in type and scope and duration and assured everybody to include assad, iran, and all the others there's not going to be any boots on the ground. this is a disaster in the making in a civil war. >> and yet we have heard john boehner, the speaker of the

house, eric can tore, the republican majority lder in the house, both men couldn't wait to rush to cameras and make their statements and support of this president. this is -- i mean where in the world is the opposition? >> they're re aren't any scoop jacksons left. the closest is frank wolf who has been pleading for a special committee to investigate benghazi. asaws has three chemical weapons delivery systems, artillery, aircraft and missiles, some as big as the scuds with a 250-mile range. the only way to deter and degrade that threat is a constant stare with aircraft like global hawk overhead, an immediate response from overhead attack aircraft or drones, as the media incorrectly calls them. that means we would first have

to take out syria's air force and the anti-aircraft systems and the russians aren't going to work with us, notwithstanding what mr. kerry said, because all they want is not a negotiated settlement, they just want to guarantee they have their base at tartus. think about this, that is their only base outside the black sea. the only way they keep that base is by keeping assad in power. if assad is at all smart, he's moved every one of his deployable assets into that base because he knows we're not going to shoot at it. >> that base, it's -- well, it's a facility. it's a relatively small naval facility that provides service to the med titerranean -- the russian mediterranean fleet. but here is the point colonel north is making and it seems to me to be exact. russia rmains an enigma within this rather loose calculus of this administration. i can't imagine what president obama called the bored fella in

the back of the classroom, that is vladimir putin, would not seize the opportunity to ring a prolonged presence for the united states military in syria if he ever got the opportunity. >> they would love to bleed us in syria. look what we're talking about now. we are not even talking about how we're going to pay for any of this. the administration says 's going to be short, a couple of days. >> that's what they said about libya. >> that's what they said about libya. >> and libya cost $1.7 billion, we think. it lasted six months, not the days the president promised. but the consequences of libya are with us today, and colonel north just referred to congre congressman wolf is exactly right. we need a full-on investigation with this congress because we still don't have the bloody answersand the fact of the matter is this administration has stonewalled. how can anyone give credence to what they promise, what they say or stipulate. colonel, very quickly and then

i'm going to give k.t. the last word. >> two or three days of cruise missile attacks isn't going to change the dynamic at all. it's not a strategy. the bottom line is this administration -- by the way, eight days leff to a 9/11 anniversary and there's nothing being done to improve security. god help us. >> amen. you get the last word. >> syria is the beginning of this middle east conflict that's going to go on for a generation of shiites versus sunnis. we do not belong in this fight. if we had our own energy, energy independence, then they could go at each other as much as they'd like. we're not in the middle. >> it strikes me every single day when i think about russia, its role in this. we ve an administration, as i describe it, they're an enemy right now the way this administration has treated russia. they should have been a collaborator and a cooperative relationship should have been built by this administration over the last five years with russia. this president should be laying

the plans to extricate u.s. interests from the region rather than send us, consign us to even further conflict. k.t., thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> colonel north, thank you, as always. >> my pleasure. up next, a brand new book. emily gets her gun. we'll talk with emily about her gun and what it took to get it. emily miller, senior editor um... where's mrs. davis? she took an early spring break thanks to her double miles from the capital one venture card. now what was mrs. davis teaching? spelling. that's not a subject, right? i mean, spell check. that's a program. algebra. okay. persons a and b are flying to the bahamas. how fast will they get there? don't you need distance, rate and... no, all it takes is double miles. [ all ] whoa. yeah. [ male announcer ] get away fast with unlimited double miles from the capital one venture card. you're the world's best teacher. this is so unexpected. what's in your wallet? it's delicious.

so now we've turned her toffee into a business. my goal was to take an idea and make it happen. i'm janet long and i formed my toffee company through legalzoom. never really thought i would make money doing what i love. [ robert ] we created legalzoom to help people start their business and launch their dreams. go to legalzoom.com today and make your business dream a reality. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side.

turning to a new subject, my next guest says the greatest assault in history on second amendment rights is being waged right now. joining us is "washington times" senior opinion editor emily miller, author of the new book "emily gets her gun" and obama wants to take yours. great to have you here. this is -- here, if you can see this, emily.

>> what is it? >> it's a 9 millimeter. >> that's a terrific gun. >> i think it looks pretty cool too. >> and you look bad. you look bad there. >> a pretty good shot. >> i understand that you got the idea -- decided that maybe you better be proficient with one of these after your home was invaded. >> yeah. i walked in and found basically a thug, drug addict, in my house stealing my wallet is all he got away with. thank god he didn't hurt me. but when i unfortunately chased him down the street to get a picture, which i've learned from the police was not a smart idea and i don't recommend, 15 of his buddies standing around two pickup trucks, that's when i called the police and i got away. that's when i decided i'm going to get a gun. i know, i've learned a lot of lessons from that process. >> you've learned to shoot. how good are you? >> i'm pretty good. i'm pretty good. i've gotten better too. i train regularly, of course.

but that opened my eyes up to the need for the second amendment especially in a city like d.c. where crime is rising. so it took me to get a gun in d.c. four months, to get a legal gun. 17 steps. >> we have to -- >> and here's what happened. right after that we had aurora, newtown and obama won a second term and he was going to exploit that horrible tragedy in newtown and use a second term to pass gun control. it's still trying to get through the senate. passed its laws in five states. now they're trying to overturn stand your ground. now they're trying to pass executive actions. it is spreading like wildfire. the reason i wrote this bok is because it took me 17 steps and it's going to be taking people of new york that many times. >> new york city you can forget it. >> colorado. but now you have all these new laws in all these states. this is spreading. and gun owners are law abiding. >> the people with registered guns, the people with licenses to carry are people who are good, honest citizens who are

exercising their constitutional rights. and i have to say this to mike bloomberg, i have to say this to the president, to vice president biden, you know, what is the deal? is there something about a lower crime rate than we've experienced in decades that bothers you? gun sales or the an all-time sale. crime is at an all-time low. there is a correlation. >> a parallel, right. it's the opposite of a parallel. we have the highest civlian gun ownership in history, well over 300 million guns, and gun crime is going like this. it's down 40% since 1991. so what do they want to do? increase more gun laws? what would be helpful if we want to decrease the 11,000 people who are killed by guns is start putting mental health records into the system. >> when you can of mental health records, it's important to point out that half of those deaths are by gun are suicides. >> right, definitely.

of the -- 30,000. 11,000 of homicides and about a quarter are criminals in criminal acts. so it's down to about 7,000. not that every life doesn't matter, but it not the epidemic the white house wants you to believe. >> well, the fact of the matter is that crime is declining. >> every year. >> and it is in large measure because people are defending themselves and refusing to be victims. and we're out of time, but i've just got time to say buy the book. the book is "emily gets her gun." emily miller thanks for being here, congratulations. we wish you a lot of success. >> you're a good friend, thank you. >> it's on sale bookstores everywhere, and we can get you to a think at loudobbs.com. up next, looking at college football. it's back! and man, oh, man, what a season is underway already. thank you orville and wilbur... ...amelia... neil and buzz: for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging to the past.

and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it. anbe a name and not a number?tor scottrade. ron: i'm never alone with scottrade. i can always call or stop by my local office. they're nearby and ready to help. so when i have questions, i can talk to someone who knows exactly how i trade. because i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. that's why i'm with scottrade. announcer: scottrade- proud to be ranked "best overall client experience."

college football is back and if you're a fan, i mean this is -- this looksike it's going to be quite a season. the game is more popular than ever. my next guest says college football, though, is in grave danger and on the brink of losing i soul. joining us is john bacon, whose new book is "fourth and long." there it is. we recommend it highly. "fourth and long, the fight for the soul with college football." john, great to have you here. congratulations on the book. a lot of people say the expression "a struggle for the soul" you mean exactly what you say in that title, don't you? >> absolutely. i think that we've got the players and the fans on this side and our love for this sport as you know as a baylor fan is irration irrational. this tug of war is now a landslide. they're dragging the players and

the fans through the mud. sooner or later, the players and the fans will say enough, let go of the rope and what they will have is a muddy rope. >> and why is the ncaa seemingly impervious to what is happening in their sport? >> they're not oblivious, but they are impervious. that's an important distinction. simple reason, they started out being sheriffs in 1905 when teddy roosevelt started the organization. once they got into march madness, they realized there's more money in saloon keeping than being a sheriff. so their $777 million, exactly 1% goes to enforcement. so you're 1% sheriff and 99% saloon keeper. at that point you've got a built-in conflict of interest. >> i'm watching jameis winston last night, florida state, watching johnny manziel, texas a&m saturday, getting thrown out of the game after coming in after his suspension in the

first half. i mean there's lots of drama, there's great talent out there. it's such an extraordinary game. how can -- how can we sit here and watch these people screw up something so terrific? >> that's the fight, lou, right there. i grew up in ann arbor, i love the sport, obviously. those of us who love it, our love for it is irrational. the players i met at penn state, as cynical as i get about the whole thing, when i meet the players at northwestern, at penn state, at michigan -- >> four teams that john followed for the book. >> and ohio state too. when you meet the players, you end up being very reassured of the future of the game if they are the game. the problem is they are not in charge, the adults are. one of the great lines from the penn state assistant coach, he said what i'll always recall about the crisis management of keeping our team together is the players handled the whole thing a lot better than the adults did. that can describe almost all of college football as i've seen it

in this book. >> penn state, everything they have gone through and all the fallout tat is yet to come, how are they handling the present? >> it's extraordinary. that program, as you'll re in the book, was far closer to full collapse than people realize. underclassmen were telling the seniors we're about to leave, all of us. they had a week to keep their whole team together. they did that and they saved their season. that to me is one of the most inspiring sports stories i have ever seen is how the penn state players and the new coach kept that squad together. >> how do you think it's going to -- how do you think it resolves? players making money? autographing, whether it's under the table or whether it's up front as a stipend. is it time for the ncaa to say let's pay the players? >> it's getting there. i think until you have a bona fide minor league the way you do in basketball and football -- i'm sorry, in hockey and baseball, you always have these misfits. so as long as that's the case, there's going to be a crisis point sooner or later where the

whole thing blows up. >> the book is "fourth and long." and we recommend it highly. it's available, of course, in bookstores near you. that's it for us tonight. that's it for us tonight. we thank you for the pursuit of a better tomorrow is something we all share. but who can help you find your own path? who can build you a plan, not just a pie chart? who can help keep your investments on course, whatever lies ahead? that seone is a morgan stanley financial advisor. and we're ready to work for you.

>> why? political leader grab power that power turns many into try rants. they raise taxes to pay for war. and increase regulation