anyone sovereignty because we say that in our viewpoint you're harboring someone at some time some place could be a danger the united states global projection of military power going back to what john quincy adams said when he was secretary of state in eight hundred twenty one before was president that we could be dictators of the world what our policy would then shift from a policy of liberty and freedom to a policy of domination and control and now we are a country that's lost its way and it's not because we may not be number one in the amount of arms we sell you know we sell about three quarters of all the arms abroad or have the greatest military power but because we lost our moral stature and values of who we are as a people our influence of broad should be the influence of example period we should have self defense but not preemptive war for everywhere ok where we are now where the lines are all night where all these are all nice things jeffrey how did we get to this point then. well first of all let me say in terms of and terms of what bruce has just said and i should note here for the record that bruce is

a former colleague from the reagan administration although we've not met and i can't see him i recognize his distinctive voice and it's safe to say that bruce reflects what i think has become a difference among conservatives about america's role in the world and i certainly would challenge the thought that congressman paul has expressed and that bruce just tried to do a thumbnail there of that we have never been in a situation where we've gone abroad and done all these things until relatively modern history he quotes john quincy adams who of course was the secretary of state for james monroe who instituted the monroe doctrine which basically drew a line around the western hemisphere i.e. outside the borders of the united states and said if you come here you're going to have trouble so we have been getting involved in affairs outside our borders since the very beginning of this country's formal founding as the united states that said i certainly think that with the changes with the with the end of the soviet union

the end of the cold war i think that there have been a lot of changes in this world is self-evident to everyone the rise of islamic terrorism. we need to have a strong economy we can do that and i would note about the clip from h.b.o. when writer aaron sorkin who spends the words in his you know a famous hollywood liberal you can take those words and go back retroactively and apply them to any time in american history if i mean the issue here is very very fine to say with you do you think that the united states had the fame kind of debt problems. you know thirty years ago forty years ago fifty years ago a very it is a very nerd no not that we. we certainly have the same kind of debt we certainly are in a perilous situation here with the with the debt situation there's no question about that i mean as if you've noticed that the republican national convention they have the debt clock up there inside the hall that is running second by second by

second so certainly people are extremely well aware of this but what i am saying to you is there any given moment in american history there have been problems i remember hearing the notion in that summation there by jeff daniels who was the actor you were you were focusing on he talks about how we did all these impossible things where one of those things was going to the moon and i certainly remember i'm old enough to remember this i last i have to say that there were people in the day who said we should have a space program and they cited they went through the litany of the day as to as to why that we should be spending our money on education we should be doing this that and the other thing so that attitude has been around for a very very long time here but we had the money to pay for it i mean i don't i hate anyone my goal here let me go to michael here michael do you think today's america is the same as any other time in history i find that very hard to believe. no i don't think as new nuking riches i don't think we can colonize mars i don't think

we have that budget i think that's unrealistic and the you know the debt and the military spending is unrealistic that we need to be that high and it seems it seems out of proportion to the past but it seems like the attitude of the average american and our global reputation is it and all time low ok bruce you want to jump in there and we're still leadership here number we are still sure what i'm going to have you give me you know people talk about the republicans and the democrats you know i live far away from that it looks like a lot of nonsense to me because it all looks like it's finger pointing no one's taking responsibility. well i thought they were thinking there was no tomorrow you said that it's going to bruce go ahead yes i mean it was once said that you know the difference between a communist and capitalist is one believes in the exploitation of man by man and the other is the opposite and here we have the republicans and democrats you know

they they one believes that the government shouldn't be used to help one side against the other and the other believes the opposite i think with regard to these issues of global is you know projection of military force everywhere in the world there's not an inch of difference between the democrats and republicans when i go back to challenge jeffrey i do not believe at the outset we're involved in foreign entanglements everywhere we didn't get involved in the up evils in central in latin america shortly after our own revolution or even the french revolution itself and george washington declared neutrality it wasn't until the mexican american war which john quincy adams opposed where he had this idea of manifest destiny that enabled us to be the imperialist going around the globe and then we continued on that trajectory until you know we only come up to a debt problem now at sixteen trillion dollars and it's typical of empires just before they collapse to believe well if we can cut it we've encountered these before it'll all go the same way and the that was it's true of the soviet union just before it collapsed in one thousand nine hundred one everyone said well we've encountered these problems before you know it is not things and nothing's new is on

the horizon but that's simply not how empires collapse it's typically in a precipice not over a long period ok jeff you want to reply to that before we go to the break. go ahead yeah yeah yeah i would say we're here ronald reagan used to say bruce and i'm sure you remember this that freedom is not passed along in the bloodstream that we have to that every generation has a responsibility to stand up for and be responsible to situations change yes but human nature does not change human nature is the same throughout history so i do think that we're perpetually dealing with some version of the same problem or resources or economies or those kind of things different any given moment in time yes they can and you're free and we're going and we're going to go to a sure thing race gentlemen we're going. and short break and after that show break we'll continue on just our discussion on whose number one stay. and you can see.

wealthy british scientists. margetts. scandal and. find out what's really happening to the global economy in the kinds of reports. and if you say.

well the next time you're about to remind you we're discussing whether the u.s. is still number one. and if you say it's. ok michael i want to go back to you in washington d.c. i mean one thing i think is quite clear maybe there's some nuances but it's the middle class for the last thirty years has been plummeted ok this is where the real crisis in america is right now because people are being asked to sacrifice the middle class is a sacrificed a lot over the last quarter century ok and now everybody has to sacrifice but there's not much left to sacrifice what do you think. right i think our number one security issue or security threat is our own economy. and the consolidation of wealth is too dangerous and over with that today it's at an all time high ok jeffrey when agree or disagree on that. well you know i agree with that michael i i

think that the economy is always the number one issue in a presidential campaign it is the issue right now and there is a reason for because from from the average person in the middle class all the way to the as they say these days the one percent things have been very difficult and with or without a strong economy nothing else is going to happen for america bruce you want to but i think they're really important if not more important it's just the economy is the fairness of the system now we have programs you've got all sorts of money spewed in green technologies that those who have the lobbyists who get the government on their side massive entitlements the military industrial terrorism complex five hundred million dollars for a single plane they're paying twenty eight dollars for a biofuels for the navy all those things make people cynical not because they don't understand the ability and the willingness to be frugal in industrious but the playing field is all tilted in favor of one part of the community against another

that's unfair and that creates a lack of legitimacy in the people and i want to go back to the issue that jeffrey raised about freedom freedom is what needs to be fought and captured by each generation and that's what we're losing we have a president who can the sas and eight u.s. citizens without due process detain them at guantanamo bay with the u.s. military under the n.d.a. intercepts our phone conversations our e-mails invades our privacy without any court warrants this is our freedom that we're losing we have all power concentrated in the president republican or democrat alike and that's what we need to stand up and recognizes our greatness as a government and as a people not necessarily the g.n.p. or what the average in our household prices ok jeffrey if i go to you you know this program is broadcast to a foreign audiences not in the united states would you please explain to me the difference between the republicans in the democrats in solving america's problems. sure in. their sort of fashion the nutshell thank you the democratic

party believes and has become to believe in central planning that the government knows best that government should be making the decisions republicans at least in theory and i can see bruce smiling even though i can't seem to have an answer theory believe in limited government here although i would have to say i probably i probably agree with bruce that there is more more of our folks that depart from that philosophy than than should be the case i don't often agree with congressman paul on foreign policy but i think he certainly has a point you know when we get to the discussing whether we should eliminate the five cabinet departments and things of this nature the federal government the united states believe many conservatives is far too big and that the century is the difference ok bruce would you agree with that i admire i want to deal done. jeffrey said i think he got it right even though the rhetoric on the republican side may be for limited government the facts are the opposite even take someone like mr ryan

who is supposed to be the intellectual beacon of the of the party and of the republican team there you know he votes for the tarp program he votes for bailing out general motors who votes for a party to expand medicare by a trillion dollars per year he voted for no child left behind he voted for all the big defense spending he doesn't want to cut defense whatsoever despite its bloated and single source contracts that make it perhaps the least competitive aspect of the economy and what is his plan for balancing the budget now maybe in twenty forty you know twenty eight years from now and this is somebody for a limited government say the words are there but they say the substance between the two parties is virtually indistinguishable and that's why even if you look at the ten year projections on the budget you know the difference is between having a national debt of twenty two trillion after ten years as opposed to twenty three and a half trillion nothing of substantial michael what do you think about the political culture of that interesting thing and let me go to michael first i mean the pollute

is there a political culture in the united states to really seriously address the country's problems let's go back to the top of the program we heard that clip from h.b.o. those are real problems those are facts i think the parties are. more extreme than they've ever been they pander to their fringes more than ever and i know you know talking about the reagan era i guarantee you that obama doesn't have a beer with boehner every night like reagan did with tip o'neill and all and at the end of the reagan era reagan compromise with tip on a lot of issues and i'm not saying that same spirit of compromise today it just doesn't exist. and on a foreign policy front these parties are. our separate by degrees i mean they're pretty much the same to domestically the mission is a different story i think the democrats are focused on helping the middle class but

foreign policy wise these parties look very similar jeffrey you might jump in there . well i would i would say not similar enough to to to my way of thinking i would say again you know with bruce and congressman paul one of the interesting things peter about the american political party system is that you have all used the word outsiders. and they can even be inside a party. who will promote a certain series of ideas and over time the best of those ideas get grafted into one of the two political parties and what what isn't liked is left behind this was true of the populist movement in the eight hundred ninety s. when they started talking about what we now know as social security that became grafted eventually into f.d.r.'s new deal i think with congressman paul some of his ideas in terms of tarp and things of that nature i think frankly have resonated

with a lot of people beyond congressman paul's base and i do think that there is going to be a lot of concern about this and there's going to be a sharp eye with people here everybody or a lot of people i know on the conservative side are very enthusiastic about governor romney and particularly congressman ryan but i don't think that the kind of issues that bruce is raising have been forgotten and i think that there will not be a tendency now to let the if there is a romney ryan administration to let them skate as i think was sort of done with george w. bush in the aftermath of nine eleven i think go ahead brewster i think many of the problems that he had many of the problems there were a numerated in the opening here really escape you know political or government resolution it's a matter of the political culture icons who we hold up for admiration whether they're lady gaga or someone who is wise and industrious and ambitious and used and that's why they the educational level and maybe this has tumbled because we have we have we have the the icons that youth are shown who are not people who engage in

deep thought and cerebration that there are stars for the for the moment and even. when we have candidates like sarah palin or mr perry from texas almost denigrating learning as though it's a disability for politics again that sends a terrible message to youth deciding how they want to spend their time and the same issues with god you know we have health care staggering amount spent and yet it b.c. continues to climb and the general level of health continues to plummet inverse proportion to the spending it's because we have lost the sense of strength and cultural rigor that was so permeating and the founding years when we had struggles to overcome and i don't know whether government can address that properly if something's got to be addressed in the classroom and around the dinner table ok michael the american people have governments and politicians that they deserve. that is a good question but i think the control of the media by the corporate america i

think people go into the voting booth with misperceptions and the way the media works they're able to by the end of the general election everyone kind of goes towards the middle and they look very similar and everyone panders every single interest group and tries to be you know all things to all people so i think the media. you know through the advertising the average voter goes in there i think i think they're they've been deceived and they don't know really what's really what's going on with candidates jeff there's no substantial debates that's my point there's no real debate it's always you know when you go to vote you're going to get either pepsi or or coca-cola or you're going to get a cola jeffrey what do you think. i think they i think the addition of congressman i frankly i was concerned about that issue with with being quite candid with

governor romney's candidacy i think edition of congressman ryan to the ticket guarantees for instance that medicare which is a very serious issue is going to be on the table front and center so i think we are going to have a serious discussion about this and a choice but that is the way the american political system works the center can be far to the left it can be far to the right it can be truly in the center but it will gravitate to over time to collectively whatever the the vast majority of american painting wherever it sort of settles and the american people in the one nine hundred twenty s. were much more conservative people then they were in the one nine hundred thirty s. and forty's and it sort of moved left and then again by the time of president reagan's real our election in one nine hundred eighty it had begun to move right the center moved right and to this day i still believe we're a center right country essentially ok well being center right bruce's that solved america's problems. no i don't and you asked at the outset i believe do people get

the leadership that they deserve and i think the answer is it is not yes i think it's perhaps no leaders are there to lead not to become echo chambers of popular opinion that but that's what every listen it's runs and leaders are but that's what they are i know and that's where leaders that's leadership is a failure precisely for that reason when everyone tries to establish their credibility by saying my my parents or grandparents were coal miners or whatever the coal miners are really respectable people but they aren't the kinds of people who typically are have the leadership skills of winston churchill's charles de gaulle the real giants that are needed to take a country from oppressive piece of disaster into a higher arc and we now have a political system that develops what i call non leader leaders all they do is they go out there and they are really dramatic very whether you know the letters i mean you really want to go right ok we all agree there's no leadership in america many thanks today to my guests in washington and in harrisburg and thanks to our viewers

for watching us your week see you next time and remember the last time. you. want to.

mission is. going to take three years for charges. three. three stooges freezing. cold fried long live video for your media project a free medio dog party dog tom. pirtle .

luck breaking news this hour barry's verizon skate loses his multibillion dollar claim against. the london courtroom clash of the russian oligarchs billed as one of the modest x. . nations to intervene in syria to protect civilians as britain refuses to rule are seeking action beyond the un security council. series one of the topics and drilled in our sound was the latest interview with a whistleblower promises no wiki leaks revelations and claims the media's been manipulated over what's happening that. classroom news rumbled the us republican candidate promises to show a rush of more bad about if he wins the election but faces criticism himself for flip flopping on key issues.

international news live from moscow this is r.c. with me thanks for joining us first barry's varies all ski has had his multi-billion dollar claim against fellow russian oligarch roman abramovich dismissed by a london court the trial which heard allegations of threats of blackmail and corrupt business deals is being billed as one of the most expensive legal battles in history and also he's lower smith is in london with the details lower tell us more please about what the two were fighting over and about the court decision. well the court decision found against. that means essentially that not a cent of the more than five billion dollars in retribution that he was asking for will be paid to him by a mortgage. arrived at the court earlier this morning looking pretty upbeat himself

with not he said to reporters that he believed in the legal system that that mood for him didn't last very long as the verdict was read he was holding his head in his hands obviously very disappointed by this but whatever the outcome really this case is been a huge amount of fun really spectator this opened up this kind of seedy underworld of of formally of russia's mega rich talked about what went on in the dark days of ninety's russia in what we used to call the wild beast so it was almost vost sums of money changing hands off shore bank accounts illicit payments made under the table. five star whose health ski resorts and deals enormous deals involving enormous sums of money done just on a handshake with no documentation whatsoever so it's very difficult for the judge to decide all along who's telling the truth and who's just making up the evidence

as he goes along and it's brought these two squabbling billionaires with all that that involves that they're vastly expensive lawyers menacing looking bodyguards who stalk behind them constantly and with each. other i'm over it each accusing the other of lying and corruption and greed now the details of this case have been that it is not. that he lost billions of dollars when back in the day intimidated him into selling off stakes in oil and metals companies in russia for a fraction of what they were actually worth he says but i'm over it says to him but it's never partners in the true sense of the word he says that he took him on. payments that he made to better for political protection or creature. which means ruth in russian as it's come to be called which is a word that is now as a result of this case freely bandied about in legal circles here in the u.k.

. which admits that he made these regular undocumented payments to bits of skin but that they were only for this political protection and often in huge cash sums up to five million dollars handed over in cash at times and totaling several hundred million dollars he says that he paid for but is also key to travel in a private jets he bought him a friend chateau and he also bought him jewelry for his girlfriend but he's also wanted in excess of five billion dollars to make up for all that on top of the one point two billion that he originally received for what he says was the stake in these metals companies of course he's lost but this has been one of the biggest civil trials in brazil legal history with as i say massive amounts of money involved and this is not the only case that has been going on in the us in fact there's another one involving alleged the army binyam magnates and a man called me of noise a similar kind of thing to have no says that they were partners and reneged on that

but it says again that he was paying him protection money so that all of these cases going on in london that moment we think of he had won there would have been a lot more of them but still it shows that the british legal system is willing to pay these cases and the bill for the lawyers has run into millions and it's been hundreds of hours in court time. laura smith reporting there live from london there were many thanks indeed. and of course there's more and all the twists and turns in this case as well as coleman and another this isn't our website which was also. there we go now turkey wants the u.n. security council to setup a save with this syria to protect civilians fleeing a move that would effectively require military intervention given russia and china's opposition to know and involvement in syria's affairs britain made it clear for nations could buy polish the council to implement their idea western powers already discussing the future of syria without its current leadership brings us the

details from new york. the security council remains very much divided over how to deal with the syrian crisis the high level meeting that was taking place in new york focused on the humanitarian circumstances in syria right now and how they continue to exacerbate according to u.n. officials at least two hundred twenty nine thousand syrians have fled the country in the past eighteen months spilling over to neighboring countries turkey and the security council to consider setting up refugee camps inside of syria outside countries would see card this is a suggestion that the syrian government say they are very much against russia and china also opposed it saying that it could only create more conflict and violence so clearly you have a very complicated situation here but we did hear western countries address the security council their representatives calling once again for syrian president bashar al assad.