let me say a few words since you mentioned venezuela about hugo chavez. william going to say may sound a little radical for what most people think of a cia analyst would think. a few years ago i read a book by a diplomatic historian about latin america, a fellow named martin and he made the assertion that i actually agree with and he said that ever since the end of the 19th century up to the present when the united states wanted something from latin america and it didn't get it by asking for it nicely it tended to get nasty. i can think of a lot of cases in which that happened. so the appearance from time to time people like hugo chavez or juan peron at times or other latin american populist leaders i think is the payback that we've gotten and having a big stick policy towards this region i am not exactly sure how quickly and why we developed this hegemonic approach or attitude, and i think it did begin in the late 19th century because before that all the we were interested in latin america it may have actually begun to some extent it may have been a fore

en venezuela,el presidente hugo chavez acuso hoy a los gobiernos de estados unidos y canada de atacar su gobierno y apoyar a grupos opositores encabezados por estudiantes universitarios, para generar violencia en venezuela... chavez tambien rechazo los comentarios del embajador de estados unidos en brasil, thomas shanon,

que Él hermano del lÍder de las farc, estÁ en h@not uni-fin de semtñÓ atraviesa venezuela dejÓ a hugo chÁvez lombia a fin de mejorar el suministro de energÍa. >> si el gobierno de colombia, si tiene un excedente de energÍa elÉctrica, y nos ofrece vendernos y a nosotros nos interesa, lo compramos. no tenemos ningÚn problema.tñdñi >> el gobierno colombiano asegurÓ que esta propuesta se hace como gesto de solidaridad, y anunciÓ que se estÁn evaluando los costos. >> estamos vendiendo ecuador, posiblemente lo podrÍamos poner a disposiciÓn, el precio costoso, estÁ disponible no hemos conversado. >> el ministro venezolano habÍa calificado de sospechosa la propuesta, inclusive dijo que se trataba de una jugada polÍtica. sin embargÓ el presidente chÁvez obvio ese seÑalamiento y hasta anunciÓ la compra de plantas estadounidenses. denunciÓ la presencia del n de @ comandante guerrillero y asegurÓ que Él gobierno de ese paÍs lo estÁ protegiendo. >> se han detectado comunicaciones, de que los campamentos se encuentran en esa zona. ÷ihyíkpunivisionnot uni-fin de ovocaciÓn contra nuestro paÍs, cada cierto t

minarets, and khadafy asked them to participate in a total swiss boycott. >>> it was light's out for hugo chavezential palace was plunged into darkness interrupting his mid-sentence yesterday. emergency lights came on and then chavez quipped, we are still here. power outages are common venezuela and they say that chavez has not invested enough in the electricity production, so maybe they will put some money in that area now. >> that is embarrassing for the president of venezuela. >> yes, it is. >> thank you, lisa. >>> he was president obama's green czar, but van jones didn't last long in the white house, but he is back in the spotlight now. we have a rare interview coming up. our suzanne malveaux spoke with him. >>> plus, $1,200 for a surgical stapler and $280 for an i.v. bag. dr. sanjay gupta will show you why your hospital bills are so high. >>> even as the feds open up investigations into the fatal killer whale attack on a trailer, seaworld is saying it is ready to resume its shows. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] the cadillac cts sport sedan. one of car & driver's 10 best for the third year in a row.

for example, hugo chavez is probably the best example of the socialist in power right now.nd basically chavez can go in and do whatever he wants. if he doesn't like you you, he will take your business and close it down. he can take your house on some kind of violation. he has no compunction about doing that i draw the line -- you know, look, it's everybody's definition of what a socialist is. so that -- we will leave it there. now, when you have the country starting to define a sitting president as a socialist, is that working -- look, remember how they defined president bush. a liar. he lied about iraq, a dummy, didn't know anything. the same thing is going on with president obama. he is a socialist. this is no accident. that's how he is being portrayed by his political opponents. is that going to be effective? >> >> well, it's been effective already to some extent. i don't think we have seen in modern times for quite some time anything quite as strongly as the resistance to president obama on the breath of these programs and on the scope of these programs that he has trie

if this happened in venezuela, we would be parading hugo chavez, but it happened right here in the unitedtates -- the rating -- berating in the show was -- hugo chavez, but it happened right here in the united states. this is not taxing people to say where you public, but a goal to reduce travel miles. and there is the federal office of livability, believe it or not. for them, livability means living in smaller areas so you cannot have cars, if you cannot have large serbs, you cannot have a large plots of land. livability means living in small quarters, rather than giving the people the choice as to where to live. and i want to move on to make -- to betsy mccaughey, i have not even talked about health care because that is the subject of her presentation. but to show how hypocritical these people are, on november 17, the assistant secretary for transportation gave a speech on how important it was to reduce vehicle miles of travel and how people should use buses and subways or trains. afterwards, she got into a chauffeured limousine. [laughter] someone asked if she should be taking the bus.

foreign leaders like hugo chavez and the chinese should have no backdoor ability to undercut our democracye stop bailout recipients or government contractors from spending unlimited amounts. taxpayer money should not be used to promote a company's political interest. third, we are imposing new disclosure requirements. fourth, we are proposing new disclaimers on television advertisements, hoping to drill down deep so that the real person that puts forward the money is disclosed. finally, we are requiring candidates to provide reasonable access to their time if corporations will make them the target. host: joining us on the phone from "politico" is david mark. thank you for being with us. caller: good morning. my pleasure. host: where does this go from here? what does this action means in terms of the 2010 election? caller: they have said that it allowed to expedite this, moving it as quickly as possible so that it can have an effect of the midterm elections, which are coming up quickly in november. if the house and the senate are going to move on this, it will have to be in a matter of week

foreign leaders like hugo chÁvez and regimes like the chinese should have no backdoor ability to undercutmocracy. secondly, we stop bill recipients or government contractors from spending unlimited amounts, because taxpayer money should not be used to promote a company's political interests. third, we impose new disclosure requirements. fourth, we impose new disclaimers on tv ads to drill down deep so that the real person must put forth the money and has to disclose and this claim. we require candidates to have reasonable access to tv air time. i am going to discuss the last three and chris will discuss the first two in some detail and then we will answer your questions. let me talk about disclaimer's -- disclosure. our bill will follow the money. our legislation imposes a series of new disclosure requirements that will create an unprecedented paper trail to track the activities, not only of corporations, but all tapes -- all types of organizations that have previously operated in the shadows. under our bill, for the first time, all corporations, labor unions, and 501c3 organizations woul

the republic but hugo chavez in venezuela. he started out socialism.ing to help the poor and impoverished. massive nationalization of industry, and where did it get him? for all practical purposes there was an article on the "wall street journal". he's given up on even trying pretend it as democracy because now the people, the poor people that were supposed to get more money from the money are. their standard of life is poor though and they're in the streets protesting. and hugo chavez is saying you better watch out. he's turned into a dictator now. that's last recourse if you google road to serfdom and readers digest it'll take you to uk website. i think every volunteer out to read that and be very well informd to precisely articulate what's at stake here and why common citizens like us need to mobilize against the political elite. i'll tell you how bad the situation is. the three of us were driving down from ohio and had a conversation and a number of people are running in primaries. tea party republicans running in primaries and so it's like we were

foreign leaders like hugo chavez and the chinese should have no backdoor ability to undercut our democracysecond, we stop bailout recipients or government contractors from spending unlimited amounts. taxpayer money should not be used to promote a company's political interest. third, we are imposing new disclosure requirements. fourth, we are proposing new disclaimers on television advertisements, hoping to drill down deep so that the real person that puts forward the money is disclosed. finally, we are requiring candidates to provide reasonable access to their time if corporations will make them the target. host: joining us on the phone from "politico" is david mark. thank you for being with us. caller: good morning. my pleasure. host: where does this go from here? what does this action means in terms of the 2010 election? caller: they have said that it allowed to expedite this, moving it as quickly as possible so that it can have an effect of the midterm elections, which are coming up quickly in november. if the house and the senate are going to move on this, it will have to be in a matte

whether it is hugo chavez, many others. i hope that every american would agree that we don't want foreign interests spending money to influence the outcome of american elections. understandably, those interests but before an interesting -- put the foreign interests first. we protect those entities from spending that corporate money in these elections. our test is threefold. if the foreign ownership is 20% or more, that constitutes a corporation controlled by a foreign interest. or if a majority of their board of directors is made up of foreign principals, that also constitutes a foreign controlled interest. and finally, there is an objective test in those cases where you have ownership below 20%, but it is clear that the effect of decision making with respect to political activities and the expenditure of funds for political activities is made by foreign interests. those are the components that will be considered in the legislation for determining where the ban will apply. çówith respect to whatçó we call paid to play trans

caller: george washington, he had it in his head to become a hugo chavez under his administration.er alexander hamilton. he successfully managed his foreign policy to avoid war. he gave the country peace and helped keep problems with slavery that they would have a long way. he believe in restraint and not try to perpetuate himself forever in office. one of the questions i have been talking about obama, he always uses logical fallacies and false choices in a lot of his speeches. why do journalists not call attention to his use of that? host: give us an example of when you have heard that most recently. caller: a number of times you use the ad hominem, which is attack the man, not the argument. during his campaign when he was talking about wearing a flag on his lapel, he said i'm a true patriot because i do not wear a flag and there can be true patriots that you wear flags or do not. there are false patriots that wear flags and false patriots that do not wear flags. he was using a logical fallacy to defend his position. why don't you call him on his logical fallacies? host: well, you

that are based here in the united states that are controlled by foreign interests, whether it's hugo chaveze examples. and i would hope that every american would agree that we don't want foreign interests spending money to influence the outcome of american elections. understandably those foreign interests put those foreign interests first, not america's interests first and not the interests of american citizens. so we prevent those entities that are controlled by foreign interests from spending that corporate money in these elections. our test is three-fold. if the foreign ownership is 20% or more, that constitutes a corporation controlled by a foreign interest or if a majority of their board of dis is made up of foreign principals, that, also, constitutes a foreign-controlled interest. and there is an objective test in those cases where you have foreign ownership below 20%, but where it's clear that the effective decision making with respect to political activities in the expenditure of funds for political activities is made by foreign interests. so those are the components that will be co

why would you want to send more money to hugo chavez? wouldn't that money be better spent on american energy provided by american companies who offer jobs here in america? so, what are we going to do right now if we drastically reduce america's energy production? if we cut our ability to deliver natural gas, are we going to just sit at home and freeze in the dark? most places except the big cities, there is no public transportation. how are people supposed to get to work? where i respect in southeast texas people drive to work. their vehicle sometimes is their car, the called a pickup truck. the energy-killing policies proposed by the administration -- are proposed by the administration this year, not 10 years from now but it's in the next budget. it will kill off american jobs, it will kill off productivity. it will make america more vulnerability to our enny -- vulnerable to our enemies and it will send american money overseas and it will continue to make us dependent on foreign countries for our oil. it's not a good idea to destroy am

where leaders like hugo chavez have no back door ability to undercut our democracy. second come up with stop bailout recipients and contractors from spending unlimited amounts because taxpayer money should not be used to promote a company's political interest. third, we imposed new disclosure requirements. fourth, to put disclaimers on the television ads. these will drill down deep said that the real person who put forward the money is disclosed in has to this claim. finally, we require candidates to have reasonable access to television air time if corporations are going to make them the target of political expenditures. i am going to discuss the last three and chris will discuss the first two. then we will answer your questions. let me talk about disclosure. our bill will follow the money. our legislation imposes a series of new disclosure requirements that will create an unprecedented paper trail to track the activities and not only of corporations but all types of organizations that have previously operated in the shadows. under our bill, all 501c3 and 527's wil

he had the chance to become a hugo chavez under his administration.dard of finance with alexander hamilton. he successfully managed foreign policies to avoid a war. he gave the country peace and helped keep the problems of slavery and the had the strength to believe and not try to perpetuate themselves forever in office. one question i wondered about in talking about obama, he always uses logical fallacies and false choices in many of his speeches. why do journalists not call attention to that? host: give us an example of that coast recently. caller: a number of times he uses the ad hominem, attacked the man. , not the issue. there could be true patriots that wear flags or do not. there are false patriots that where flights and there's false patriots that do not reflect. there are many possibilities that he was using a logical fallacy to defend his position. what do you call him out on that? host: we appreciate you wearing -- waiting in. there is an unusual look at the presidency in "the new york times." the herrell all the president's for those listi

five steps, we ban foreign corporations from influencing our elections, foreign leaderring like hugo chavez should not undercut our democracy. second, we stop bailout recipients of government contracts from spending unlimited amounts, because taxpayers money should not be with used to promote a company's political interest. third, we impose new disclosure requirements and fourth, we impose new disclaimers on tv ads. both of them as you see will drill down deep so that the real person who put forward the money is disclosed and has to disclaim. finally, we require candidate that is have responsible access if corporations are going to make them the target of political expenditures. i'm going to discuss the last three, chris will discuss the first two in some details with abdomen then we'll answer your questions. so let me talk about disclaimer, disclosure. our bill will follow the money. our legislation imposes a series of requirements that will track the activities not only of corporations, but all types of organizations that it previously operated in the shadows. under our bill for the first