the united states was worried there might be conflict and intervened. the american secretary of state asserted the right of the night to intervene in the americas to prevent european intervention. he said the united states is practically sovereign on this continent, and it's fiat is the law on it subjects which -- to which it can find it interposition. the united states was willing to intervene in order to prevent european intervention in the americas. now this was elaborated in 1904 in the state of the union address given by theodore roosevelt. he defined a policy which held that the united states had the right to intervene in the americas to prevent the development of conditions that might cause european intervention. not only to prevent intervention itself, but the development of condition in the americas that might result in european intervention. this came to be called the roosevelt corollary to the monroe doctrine. roosevelt said he wanted the united states american neighbors to be stable, orderly and prosperous. if they were all the things, they h

or not. >> rose: do you think that's a test for the united states. >> i believe it was stated by the president that he did not go to saudi arabia before he made sure that all those years were on the table. >> rose: because he thinks it will create jobs is the reason he gives for the effort to sell weapons to saudi arabia. may i just go back. >> it's good that they create jobs. but that should not be the yard stick that supports terrorism. >> rose: one thing i hoped to have with you and i think it's interesting for the american people is, what is exactly a terrorist and who is a terrorist? for example, al-qaeda is a terrorist organization, you would agree? >> yes. >> rose: isis is a terrorist organization, you would agree. >> yes. >> rose: hezbollah is a terrorists organization you would agree. >> no i wouldn't. >> rose: they are on the terrorists list. >> they are on the united states t errorists list. >> rose: and others. >> no. again, let's supply a yard stick. let's take the united nations as an acceptable mechanism, an acceptable machinery to define for you who is a terror

are either allies of the united states were close partners and friends of the united states. second point on the economy, theerine had led with that, united states and china together, we are 40% of the world's gdp right now and if you look at global trade and investment, although the chinese are moving ahead in trade, between the two of us, still pretty dominant. russia is number eight in the world in its gdp. during the cold war, we concentrated on military and , like the soviet union, it is playing a week economic hand. eak economic hand. the third point would be on soft power to bring to bear. states, still today with all our difficulties, still is pretty inspirational. there is no inspirational chinese model. some talk about a development model. no one embraces a chinese political model. the same is true for russia. at times, especially as we have difficulties at this moment in our history, we contend to start to take stock of our fears and not recognize, still today, how .trong that soft power is if the united states still wants to show the leadership to continue to try

as the united states allied with latin america in the war against access nations -- axis nations. as we come to president truman. in principle, president truman 's and his key advisers like the secretary of state embrace the policies and spirit of the good neighbor. but the realities of international politics intruded upon inter-american relations. here i want to make a major point. if president roosevelt have been able to serve a fourth term until 1948, i think u.s. policies toward latin america would have changed in the same way it changed under president truman. in the postwar period, latin americans were expected the united states will continue to center foreign policy on the western hemisphere. they very much supported article 51. it tied latin america and the united states closely together. the united states and latin america joined in and alliance and joined in a kind of political alliance with the organization of american states created in bogota, colombia in 1948. in the latin american mind, the real treaty and the oas were preparation for what they really wanted to focus

it had been sanctioned as a , thet by the united states european union but not by china. in the intervening period, 2014 and 2016, china and russia signed agreement on russian oils to china. counterbalance to american power. states beganunited europe too asia from counter chinese power in the china sea. the south china sea. 2016, we elected a new president of the united states which hascommunism. further thrown into question this trilateral relationship that mr. nixon was obviously concerned about and very pressing about. my first question to get this conversation rolling is what is the state of this trilateral relationship in almost august of 2017? are we heading toward conflict, is conflict inevitable among the conflict, is conflict inevitable among the three powers to mayor is an alliance of two against one inevitable? or is it possible we might be able to cooperate with china or russia? there are issues that should unite all three powers, north korea being one in its acquisition of nuclear weapons, yet it does not seem as though that has happened. i would like you all

well the united states have to go back to why the united states wants to be in asia at all ok why does the united states intervene ten thousand miles from a chore and to answer that question you have to go back to the open door policy sounds boring but the bedrock foreign policy of the united states is the open door policy and when china closed the door after world war two initially the united states wanted to set up a client regime in china but that failed the communists took over and closed the open door and so the united states decided that career would be its first bastin against the encroachment of china and the closing of asia to american economic penetration ok but i mean let's talk about this the in this new killer thread i mean why don't they want to talk about that that's very important and that's pressing right now can you answer that boris go ahead home well you know the the real the real threat for the united states from the beginning was always china and you know we talk about one hundred sixty thousand troops stationed across the. western pacific but there are also nucle

and the united states allies. china is the largest trading partner of those countries in the world. --t point is often most of that trade is in the form of intermediate -- they go --china way do dependencies go? 25 percent of exports come to the united states. go to thena's exports united states, japan, and south korea. 80% of exports go to those three countries, plus the european union. exports go to china. that is a very disproportionate kind of inner -- interdependence. as for russia, they cannot do that woulde another really accelerate come sustain -- accelerate and sustain. they both need relationships available in the west. they both seek to gain some opportunities and advantages by becoming closer friends with one another? of course they do. we do not have to forfeit that. with the hard numbers. look at -- look at the hard numbers. 24% is down a whopping 2% since 1979 when china began its fabulous rise. we dropped 2%. is aboutorld economy 17%. that is almost exactly the same as china's share of world popula

they do not have to lose jobs to the united states. not parters -- this is of nafta, but is hanging over it, the question about building a wall between the united states and mexico. that is a huge issue between the united states and mexico. there are potential elections in mexico next year. you can expect that to become a big part of discussions, this free flow of people over the border. there are certain conditions in nafta that they allow professionals to come over with visas, but i do not know how much they are going to talk about immigration at this point. host: from alaska, independent caller. caller: good morning. the fellow asked about people driving in from mexico and canada into the united states. i spoke to you on the phone about six to eight months ago. you guys told me they had to drop their loads, and the loads were picked up by american drivers. i had mentioned that d.o.t. has regulations for a logbook and everything. so at that point, it was a nonissue. regardless of what the regulations are in mexico, they have to drop

voter suppression is a hallmark of the united states in 2014. i daresay one of the top items on the agenda of this incoming republican congress will be ever more devious and devilish ways to circumscribe the right to vote. so, it is much too easy to suggest that the so-called bourgeois democratic rights made the atrocities worthwhile. that is a callous argument. it is not the argument they would make to the socialist camp. they say it was a disaster. if you argue otherwise, you are callous and maybe even lose your job. that is the argument used in regards to rationalizing what happened on these shores. another point, if it was such a step forward why is it that , canada, that did not revolt against british rule, has a better standard of living and is a more suitable place to live, particularly for working class people. they have the single-payer health-care system, which i keep hearing it is the health care system that we should have in the united states. you may have heard two days after the election of tuesday, the supreme court has reached ou

the united states has been giving about 1/10 of 1% of the gnp to foreign aid the last three decades. the united nations asked wealthy nations to get 7/10 of 1%. during the truman administration, americans were digging deep. 2.7% of gnp went to rebuilding western europe and japan. there is only a certain amount of money. indeed, between 1946 and 1952, the united states would provide more economic assistance to belgium, a very small country, and luxembourg, about the size of this room. we were providing more money to belgium and luxembourg than to all of latin america combined. i would point out that from 1953 to 1961, we provided more economic aid to communist yugoslavia and to all of latin america. now, this denial of economic assistance had immediate regional ramification. the dreams of latin american democrats vanished. in 1948, military officers overthrew new, popular governments in peru and venezuela. elsewhere, the pace of change and reform slowed dramatically. without economic support, without u.s. economic support, the progressive governments that had come to power between 1940

unraveled two days later that was backed by the united states funded by the united states and then subsequently you know the u.s. has only increased its channeling of funds from agencies like usaid national noun for democracy amongst others you know cia special missions all kinds of things to try to undermine the venezuelan government first under chavez now and now we're seeing at they're not even trying to cover it up they're just doing it openly expressing you know the fact that either mature or decide to leave or they're going to take them out so i mean it's it's completely outrageous violation of venice our sovereignty and i mean it goes against all the promises that trump made during his campaign of being less interventionist now we're seeing the direct intervention aggression and pure violation not just of venezuela's sovereignty but of international law you can't just say you're going to go in and take out a president who was democratically elected by his people. tell you no authorities have seized the boat that belongs to a german group rescuing migrants whose footage released by italy'

we serve in the united states army, united states navy, etc. in that regard, it is a widely diverse force. we look at our coins, out of one., we're one team and that's the way we stay. thank you chlt >> question from the japanese media. >> i have a question to secretary mattis and a question for minister onodera on military defense. north korea has planned to launch a ballistic missile and seeing tensions mounting. in the two plus two joint statement, it is incorporated that japan's role would be [indiscernible] in the alliance. what specific actions would the u.s. take? and for japan, what would japan's role be in missile-defense? and what would the u.s. expect japan to do in the case of the launch of a missile? sec. mattis: we would take military action to take it down. minister onodera: simply, in the event there is an attack on japan, we will use the assets available to us for the missile defense and we will defend japan. but should different circumstances occur, we will solidify the relationship we have with the u.s. with close communicati

russia and the united states and here it is the united states that has walked out of it for some unknown reasons they have to come back and explain the situation in afghanistan turn a wristwatch when truong i don't want to get us on to become an area of competition and rivalry well i want afghanistan to become a place of cooperation i appreciate very much your aspirations but you know again better than i do that competition is a ruling the day in international side only yes it shouldn't be bad though why would the afghanistan of all the other war torn countries be an exception it should be an exception because if they don't call parades afghans will rise against those who have the key to the students in afghanistan today it is the united states they just bombed us with the biggest of the bomb that they had short of a nuclear bomb a country that they call allies and would one expect me to give quite. well at least they would say that they they have the green light from the from your successor as afghanistan's wrong and wrong no they didn't even from the off going to go well at least this

government when it comes to north korea and what the united states policy and posture is? states,nk the united and some of you may disagree, but the united states is on the same page. whether it is the white house, state department, department of withse, we are speaking one voice. the world is speaking with one voice. we saw that out of the un security council with a resolution that passed less than ago.k the u.s., along with other nations, condemned north korea for their destabilizing activities. they have taken part in two icbm launches in less than a month. the world remains concerned. >> ok, but you don't think that the president's comments are at odds with those of the secretary's and other officials, or is this kind of a good cop bad cop routine we are seeing, trying to coax the maximum you can get out of the north korean government? >> we have talked about our pressure campaign, the u.s. pressure campaign backed by no any other nations. -- many other nations. that campaign is working. it is ratcheting up the pressure on north korea. the president spoke about this yes

it should be the united states. you can talk to north korea and say we not going to these negotiations -- in washingtonency and in think tanks to negotiate north korea policy side. they will have a list of demands for us and we have to decide if we are ready to meet. i thought it was curious they did not have that either especially after trump-pence that i would be willing to meet with the leader of north korea face to face. everyone thought that was a bit over-the-top. curious they do not take advantage of a low-level meeting. i think congress can play a useful role and is playing a greater role in foreign policy. it is particularly a good comment by john mccain, a hawk and well-established. basically said the president should not have said what he said. the president basically implied we will use nuclear weapons and threaten a country with nuclear weapons here we have not heard that in a long time if ever we have heard it before. behink john f. kennedy may with the cuban missile crisis, but that is ill advised, to

our defense defend russia in a different united states because. every post. conflicts should be defeated well it's interesting you say that because it leads me to my last question i know that in your previous capacity you had to do a lot with warring parties and the mediation you participated in trying to find a solution to the sri lankan conflict then i'm sure you would agree with me that the mediation is a very challenging and often very ungrateful process how do you see yourself in this new overall of the un executive general are you more of a mediator or are you perhaps just an administrator or responsible for implementing something that has already been agreed upon i think both i mean we. just launched a campaign called clean seas to. norma's presti pollution which are destroying our oceans but also being a mediator and if they. are learning from our maybe ten years trying to. succeed. most of the many other people killed how big. those will. listen to the u.s. when they go there. so essentially what you're saying here is that even if you had

the united states cannot afford to wait any longer. is alarming but it's not surprising because north korea has been on the path of trying to be able to fit a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile capable of reaching the united states for some time. and with more time north korea is going to refine those capabilities further. so there's a lot of urgency now to stop north korea before it can deploy a reliable icbm that's capable of targeting the united states. >> so are you saying they should accept the fact that they're going to have this technology, they're going to have this capability, go to the table and try and find a way to have common ground between north korea and the united states and get them to either stop developing more nuclear weapons or to find a way to deter them from using them? >> well, i think that the united states should keep denuclearization of the korean peninsula as a long-term goal and recognize -- >> but does that look possible with this regime, kelsey? >> well, i think it can be possible but it is far out in

the secretary of state last month floated the idea that the united states would be open to talks with north korea only to have the vice president mike pence subsequently come out and say no, we will not engage in talks, a line that secretary of state tillerson later echoed. and mike pompeo spoke at length about separating kim jong-un from his nuclear arsenal without going into specifics. so we've heard this administration alternate between dialogue and negotiations and military force. i tend to agree with the general that only dialogue in this case will get us there. i tend to think that we should insist that the north koreans put denuclearization on the table. and i tend to think that we might see them more receptive. what kim jong-un seeks is to be on par with the united states and the six party partners and i think sitting around the table will in some ways give him a degree of what he seeks. >> ned, also as i opposed to the general, it seems that it hasn't caught folks by surprise, but the speed with which it has happened is a bit surprising to a number of folks. how did we not se

has not claimed that the sds is a defacto organ of the united states. my colleague has suggested a novel legal approach here which says that the u.s. could use necessary and proportionate force to defend member states of the coalition and coalition nonstate armed groups against isis if defeating isis was its sole mission. that is a very narrow exception. and the law there is no right to non-collective self-defense for regime change or other political goals. what makes it complicated is secretary tillerson and ambassador haley have indicated that the syrian regime change remains a u.s. strategic objective. here the fact that there could be mixed motives for both fighting isis, a strategic objective of the united states, and possible regime change, the mixing of these motives compromise the legal basis for military operations that have occurred and may occur in the future. i look forward to your questions. thank you. mr. solomon: thank you, christie edwards. and our last speaker before we have questions from the journalists present is david swanson. he is

he left the door up for a p premptive strike by the united states. the president also is publicly declaring that he has no plans to fire robert mueller as his russia investigation heats up. fbi said he was surprised the raid of the home of paul manafort. >> and pouring more feud on the top republican in the senate. he called mitch mcconnell's failure to get obama care repeals and replaced a disgrace. this after he posted multiple tweets slamming the majority leader and urging him to get back to work. this hour, i'll talk about the north korea situation with our panelists. first, let's go to sarah murray who is covering the president in new jersey right now. we heard from the president not once but quite today as he facing escalating threats from north korea. >> that's right, wolf, in a rare and unexpected move, he took questions from the press today and he made clear he has no plans to tone down his rhetoric when it comes to north korea. >> i will tell you this, north korea better get their act together or they will be in trouble like few nations eve

and so it looks to the united states and says hey, i need your help to kind of bring these guys back to kind of crush this rebellion and bring it into the new state of the congo. the united states for their part is like i don't know if i really want -- we don't know if we want you to have complete control over that. those are the kinds of ideas that are circulating in terms of the congo. they would have much rather instead of out with his drive to unite the congo. he said it was probably his most fatal flaw. he said you aren't going to help me. let's see if the soviets will help me. the united states says, oh, threat. it's a threat if this new government is going to sort of align with the soviet union then that's a problem that needs to be rectified when they assassinated him, so i don't really need to know for you to see that kind of conflict into which these african american ambassadors were stepping as kind of the face of the united states in africa, kind of putting the best foot forward even while the united states foreign policy was doing something praps a little bit less than sa

and so let's say relationships between korea and the united states and japan and the united states, if we are to move a base, that means a big distraction between those relationships and that sends a big signal to the rest of the world. and i think that we are in a preparation phase of a planning phase that we should be in deep consideration to consider what kind of presence that we are in need of right now. let's say the japanese and u.s. relationship, we will need a significant strategic dialogue or meeting with a forum. we should review what kind of roles and responsibilities each country should have or will have. without that kind of careful consultation between the two countries, and to think we're going to make a big mistake. i think the three panelists already talked about many of my opinions. i don't have very much to say, but if we are to realign or replace the united states forces from japan, or from asia, i think that this is the signal that we are taking a weaker position to the rest of the world. for example, the united states goes to korea and goes to japan, as armed forc

we disagree with the united states.gainst thetervene united states cooperating with the iraqi government. we believe that is a decision the iraqi government should make. we may oppose it, but it is their decision. charlie: would you encourage the government of iraq to make sure sunniunni members of the out fromnot get shut government so they do not see what we have seen time after time? first al qaeda and that isis. >> exactly. we believe the iraqi government should be inclusive. charlie: encourage the iraqi government to do that. guest: we have done that. we have done it. charlie: the government did not do it, a strong friend of iran. guest: the prime minister is a strong friend of iraq. ,very government in iraq thankfully, has been a strong friend of iraq, and this is our advice on them. iraq needs to be an inclusive government with all segments of the iraqi population represented in the government. hereon maintains extremely -- relationsains good with the sunni community. parliamentr of the -- charlie: you do not den

is he really going to come after the united states knowing what the united states can do back? he has got to make that calculation. he now has to decide that i think what the united states does is he we continue to know what our options are. and we continue to be able to. ainsley: what are our options if our sanctions aren't working. is it to put ground troops? what is the next step? >> i think it depends on what he does. if he goes and he still tests small things. is he going to watch his hard currency go way down. see hard kicks when it comes to ballistic missile program. if he chooses to do something more dangerous, the united states will respond accordingly. i think the international community will respond accordingly. brian: one thing you did not do and correct me if i am wrong, you did not sanction the chinese bank to deal with north korea. would that be the next step. >> what we did do is we sanctioned one of the primary banks that north korea deals with. that was a hard-hitting bank that we did do. so we went after coal, lead, iron, seafood. we went after sanction desig

territory of guam and a statement flat out mocking the president of the united states. bi agent staged a dramatic raid on the home of paul manafort. what are investigators looking for? plus more breaking news. state department employees in cuba possibly victims of an attack resulting in serious injuries. what happened? let's go "outfront". good evening i'm erin burnett. "outfront" tonight the breaking news. crossing trump's red line. kim jong-un firing back at

to the united states. they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. he has been very threatening beyond a normal state. and as i said, they will be met with fire, fury and frankly, power. the likes of which this world has never seen before. >> the president's comments came after "the washington post" reported this afternoon, north korea successfully produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can fit inside its missiles. that was a technological development that analyst believe was years away. the news comes less than two weeks after north korea tested a ballistic missile believed to be capable of reaching the mainland of the united states. but for two hours after that disturbing and important news broke today, the president of the united states had absolutely nothing to say about it. instead, he was busy tweeting lies about "the washington post," the "new york times," and his administration's lack of of accomplishments. first he tweeted, e-mails show that amazon washington post and f

quite frankly if you enter the united states illegally you are removable from the united states. by legal i mean without a visa or without permission. if you overstay you are removable from the united states. as a judge it's not up to me decide whether that's the right thing to do or not the right thing to do. but the one thing i will tell you is that if you allow individuals who enter the united states illegally to remain in the united states illegally unmolested, as former i.c.e. director indicated was likely to -- to individuals who simply enter the united states illegally, you are going to get more of them. your docket is going to swell. what we're talking about today. why is the backlog so high? because were not enforcing immigration laws. we create perverse incentives for people to enter the united states illegally. the smuggling rate -- the smuggling fee went way down because people which is simply come across the board and claim credible fear. this was a problem for the smuggling gangs. they didn't have anybody to smuggle, because quite frankly you didn't need a smuggler.

well yes of course you know the united states has been in. for about a hundred years and since the first iranian parliament was declared between ninety six and nine hundred eleven so it's no surprise to you once more u.s. secretary of state there was a senate committee that the united states' policy is essentially to overthrow the government it's important i think to see that this is not a threat for the future but it's almost a statement aboard the president's the good the united states has over the course even know of the past few years of them did to destabilize the government in iran including of course perhaps having a hand in the assassination well for iranian nuclear scientists between then and do indeed. as part of their effort to ramp up tensions with iran the administration has consistently threatened to pull out of the joint comprehensive action plan concerning the iran nuclear deal one of the main accomplishments of the obama administration do you take that risk seriously and where might u.s. around relations go from there. well yo

charlie: do you think that's a test of the united states? vad sharif: it was stated by the president that he would not go to saudi arabia until he was sure those things were on the table. charlie: but he believes it will create jobs, the effort to sell weapons to saudi arabia. may i just go back -- javad sharif: it's good that they create jobs, but that should not be the yardstick for who supports terrorism. charlie: one thing that i think is interesting for the american people is what is exactly a terrorist and who is a terrorist ? for example, al qaeda is a terrorist organization. you would agree? javad sharif: yes. charlie: isis? you would agree? javad sharif: yes. charlie: hezbollah, you would agree? javad sharif: i wouldn't. charlie: but they are on the terrorist list. javad sharif: they are on the united states terrorist list. again, let's apply a yardstick. let's take the united nations as an acceptable mechanism, an acceptable machinery to define for you who is a terrorist and who is not. ccept something multilateral. we cannot accept

but after two years of this steel and what of united states has changed? would up the saudis committing genocide it given? if anything we shubert from this negotiation with that behavioral or policy change requires a policy change on our side as well otherwise he will lot with it a world where we ourselves are completely fallen. [applause] >> understanding how it is realistic chance the deal so care of you elaborate saudia arabia behind the scenes? where does iran figure into the constant verizon of the advertisements on tv against the tar -- cover?. >> yes that audion who was against the establishment did israel. and the continued to speak out. the saudis have a much less visible role but i'd like the israelis who would say but what you to have a centrifuge or push hard they had no opinions probably because they don't have a nuclear program it seemed like it was more honest and direct. they don't want to see any deal whatsoever. that saudi opposition is more visible and intensified that it was before. netanyahu is taking the lead there are certain moments

the united states did not, unlike today, the united states was no arsenal for democracy, let me tell you. the united states sent iron and food and blood and muscle and bone men to france to fight in world war i and other parts of the globe, but primarily on the western front. because it did not have the facilities to make guns and planes and tanks and even trucks on the scale that were being made in france at the time. but there was one thing that the united states was particularly good at, and that was telecommunications. now, this particular picture i'm showing you is a world war i poster, you know, trying to recruit men to operate telegraphs, telephones, and radios and the size of the font on the radio makes you think it's important. but in fact, the primary instrument of generalship in world war i was the telephone. and of course it had been invented in the united states by alexander graham bell who like many great americans was an immigrant and he came from scotland and invented the telephone over here, and it was superior at this time than these other technologies because first

signed a formal priest treaty with north korea to korea and secondly united states ended war games on north korea's border and began to call out its own eighty three bases on the korean peninsula and do you believe it's true that north korea is not attached to having nuclear weapons if peace can be achieved. i think that's absolutely clear lead during the clinton administration they made very strong concessions to. centrally stop their nuclear program when george w. bush became president he called the u.s. out of that agreement so once again like the american indians used to say washington speaks with a forked tongue and that's been the experience repeatedly for north korea and do you think pete between the u.s. and north korea can happen and if yes how so. well i think the only way it's really going to happen is if people in this country america begin to really understand something about the history of the korean war where is the north koreans called it the american war and. the people in this country begin to speak out. to our government demanding that they stop these aggressive

selling to the enemies of the united states. he was pardoned after his wife donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the clintons. then you have dangerous criminals. president clinton pardoned susan roseburg, a member of the weathered underground. part of a bank robbery that led to a guard and two police officers being killed. drug dealers. president clinton commuted the sentence of a central player in a cocaine ring that stretched from california to minnesota. criminal leaker. you've heard the word leaker? president obama commuted the sentence of chelsea manning, who leaked countless classified documents to wikileaks, perhaps and others. but horrible, horrible thing that he did, commuted the sentence. and perhaps pardoned. president obama commuted the sentence of oscar lopez rivera, who was charged as part of a violent independence group from puerto rico, responsible for 28 chicago area bombings and many deaths in the 1970's and 1980's. sheriff joe is a patriot. sheriff joe loves our country. sheriff joe protected our border

the united states numbers go from 10,000 to 15,000 across the united states. so the biggest problem on ms-13 is in central america, especially in countries such as el salvador and honduras. host: how many cells here in the u.s.? guest: we don't know exactly how many cells. and actually, ms-13 is not an old american city. it's only in some big cities, especially in l.a., in some cities in virginia and new york. i will say that less than 1,000 cells. host: what do they do? what are their crimes? guest: well, these are as i said before, this is a youth gang. in the case of central america, they tend to be a very violent and brutal gang. maim,- these people kill, rape, criminal activities. basically, they get most of their money from extorting the population from trafficking drugs at their neighborhood level. but the main source of their money is ex storgs. and they basically establish these networks of extortion against the population, especially against the poor population where the communities, they control in honduras, guatemala, el alvador. kay came here in t

the united states capitol statuary hall collection. however, it is up to those states to decide who they select. now, states can put a statue in, they can take a statue out. they can only have two at one time. so it is not quite clear now, if congress itself can actually force a state to remove a one of its statues. interestingly enough, only a couple of years ago, president obama was here when they placed the statue of rosa parks inside a statuary hall. fittingly and symbolically, they placed that statue of a seated rosa park as directly across statuary hall looking directly into the eyes of jefferson davis. jim and shawn. >> mean as lot.

well the united states have to go back to why the united states wants to be in asia at all ok why does the united states intervene ten thousand miles from mature and to and to answer that question you have to go back to the open door policy sounds boring but the bedrock foreign policy of the united states is the open door policy and when china closed the door after world war two initially the united states wanted to set up a client regime in china but that failed the communists took over and closed the open door and so the united states decided that career would be its first bastin against the encroachment of china and the closing of asia to american economic penetration ok but i mean let's talk about this the in this new killer thread i mean why don't they want to talk about that that's very important and that's pressing right now can you answer that for us go ahead home well you know the the real the real threat for the united states from the beginning was always china and you know we talk about one hundred sixty thousand troops stationed across the. western pacific but there are als

can we expect a decision from the united states? and actually, which are the factors that dictate a final decision? i'd like to ask mr. president, did you have discussions with mr. sarkov? what were his impressions, what were the results of your meetings with him and what will be the further steps of the united states towards the minsk process? president poroshenko: if you allow, i will start -- really, we talked all sides of our cooperation with united states of america, including rendering to ukraine. the enlargement of our defense capabilities, cooperation and military and technical sector -- i would divide this question into two parts. first part, really, back during my visit, we agreed that we would have a very active dialogue regarding the defense capabilities of ukraine. it is not about only the rendering of lethal weapons, but the revving up of defense capabilities. electronic defense, the means to intensify the capabilities of our defense forces. well, talking over these issues requires silence. today, i would abstain from

but but for but the united states is perhaps the only major industrialized country the world it was the party that controls all three parts of government denies the existence of climate change i mean denying the existence of reality is the announcement of science public policy should be based on empirical evidence and when you do knowing critical evidence your policies become ridiculous but this across you know i had a chance to to talk. the head of the u.n. environmental program a short while ago and even he says that you know whether trunk likes it or not is not think of a deal because you have the state of california which goes its own way you have many businessman who are in a quite set on furthering that agenda so again i'm asking you whether it is all about what he says or actually what he has that has he done any harm well first of all he's done very little he's minister do very little because he has no idea what government is all about he's not hired any advisers most of the positions in the be off federal bureaucracy that are meant to support him from the state departme