has that been a good thing for the united states? >> i think the 14th amendment has been a good thing for the united states, for the six reason that it's a defining thing about us in the community of nations. we make it clear the moment you are born we don't give you a disadvantage. there are other dilenties, but at birth we don't gi you that. that is important in the interrogation in immigrants in the united states. >> and one that we day with at our peril. >> i think it's the thing that makes us distinct among other community of nations, if you look at countries in europe. you see people joined to a generation of people in those countries, and that creates a sense of alienation and discrimination proving to be close to members of the society. on balance, this is worked out for the united states because it makes things simple and straight forward. there's a small number of countries that give birth to citizenship. it works out for us. >> it has, but that doesn't mean that the acquisition of this rule is in agreement with our values.

and we are producing more oil in the united states. let's take note of that. the truth is we are still 5 million barrels a day short so this pipeline will be moving 800,000 barrels of oil from canada right to the united states which could reduce our dependence upon imported oil but it's going to a tax-free exports on so we know what's going to happen. why is that important? it's important because we export young men and women in uniform every single day to the middle east to protect the ships with oil coming into the night it states that we import from kuwait, from saudi arabia, from other countries around the world so why would we be exporting oil out of the united states while we are exporting young men and women in uniform out of america who then protect oil coming back in from countries in the middle east. that makes no sense. that is what this pipeline is all about. it's all about getting some benefit for the united states. climate change, a big loser, the dirtiest oil in the world. the canadians actually escaped paying the tax in

he accused netanyahu of sabotaging the relationship with the united states. that of course is the key opponent to benjamin netanyahus in upcoming election. but with me now, former deputy minister of defense, current member of the israeli parliament. i know you have a very different view in the prime minister's speech before congress. >> kate prime minister netanyahu was sounding the alarm for the survival of our country. we are worried. and i'm very proud of our prime minister who came and said exactly what we feel. it is a bad deal. we prefer to wait not to sign this deal because the p5 plus 1, we want to stop iran for the long run. we cannot allow them to become nuclear. you cannot monitor them. >> reporter: this came out -- and we talked about this earlier, i want to get your take. the administration immediately after the prime minister spoke said that there is literally not one new idea not one single concrete alternative, it's all rhetoric, no action. then what did the prime minister gain in this speech? >> well first of all, i see that in your politics y

france has been a little more hawkishh that the united states. they keep saying they want to have a longer duration for the agreement. they are talking as long as 25 years. the united states is saying 10 years plus another maybe five. this would be 10 years of limitations, and then sanctions over five years. and then start to lift the limits. they are being much more hawkish . they're going to twitter, the french diplomat in washington has been going to twitter like crazy saying, what so magical about march 31, why do we have to have an agreement by march 31 let's keep talking until june 30. the end of june is actually the deadline when the interim agreement expires. the march 31 deadline, which is tuesday, is more of a political deadline. it's one that -- they said they wanted to have a general agreement. it's more political for the united states with all the opposition that they had. host: we are talking with carol morello, diplomatic correspondent from "washington post." final question for you, what is the secretary of state schedule? was he st

europe inimical hostile to the united states. it would become more vulnerable eventually as technology was changing, more vulnerable to threats from europe. in any case on december 15 and , december 1915, wilson and his state of the union speech talked very focused, it was focused on military preparedness. he developed and approved a new five-year plan for the navy, which was approved by the senate. in june 1916, after a great deal of debate in congress, a national defense act was approved, which increase the army to 223,000 people. it had been an army of less than 70,000 people. this was a very marked increase. this was cast in terms of defense of the united states not of getting into war. you can see the similaritiesthis was a very between the debate that took place in the united states before 1941. a similar debate that the u.s. does not want to choose sides but should look out for itself in a world that is becoming very difficult. what you also got was an interesting debate in the united states about what the proper role for t

inimical hostile to the united states. would become more vulnerable to threats from europe. on december 15 and december 1915, wilson and his state of the union speech talked. it was focused on military preparedness. he developed a new five-year plan for the navy, which was approved by the senate. in june 1916 after a great deal of debate in congress, a national defense act was approved, which increase the army to 223,000 people. this is a market increase. this was cast in terms of defense of the united states not of getting into war. you can see the similarities between the debate it took place in the united states before 1941 -- that took place in the united states before 1941. what you also got was an interesting debate in the united states about what the proper role for the united states should be in the world. it is a debate i think which has occurred throughout the history of united states. i think we see it again today, a debate about whether the united states should be internationalist, whether it should get involve

the president of the united states as to these negotiations. negotiations aren't even done with yet but he's already saying this is a bad mistake. this may be a mistake for the u.s. but for israel it could be the end of israel. he's not mincing any words on that. i'm sure the white house will respond. i know the president will be giving an interview later this afternoon to reuters and presumably he'll respond, susan rice, the president's national security adviser, will speak later tonight before this same group. she'll have an opportunity to respond. he didn't mince any words. he said this deal is a bad deal that could endanger israel's security and that's why he says he needs to speak up. >> it seems to me that he kind of started schooling the audience or maybe the television audience that israel is located in a part of the world that they can't take any chances with iran. >> you know carol, that's of course prime minister netanyahu's main theme. he's been saying that as he's been prime minister for nine years and most israeli prime ministers h

while they're having nuclear talks with the united states. for the past 36 years, iran's attacks against the united states have been anything but mock. the targets have been all too real. iran took dozens of americans hostage in tehran. murdered hundreds of american soldiers, marines in beirut and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of american service men and women in iraq and afghanistan. beyond the middle east, iran attacks america and its allies through its global terror network. it blew up the jewish community center and the israeli embassy. it helped al qaeda bomb u.s. embassies in africa. it even attempted to assassinate the saudi ambassador here in washington d.c. in the middle east, iran now dominates four arab capitals. if iran's aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow. at a time when many hope that iran will join the community of nations, iran is busy gobbling up the nations. [ applause ] we must stand together to stop iran's march of terror. [ applause ] two years ago we were told to give the foreign min

israel depends on the united states to essentially block anti-israel resolutions at the united nations, where the u.s. has veto power and up until now the u.s. has always done that but the u.s. is threatening not to do that. >> that is a great point, the united states at the united nations may say these resolutions could go forward. other than bad publicity how does that hurt, there are people in the united states, certainly in israel and other countries that don't pay much attention to the united nations. >> there is some element of truth to that but publicity certainly is important. the reputation that israel has in the world is important. it cannot become a pariah nation which its enemies see, that's what united states can block at the united nations, passing resolution that unilateral ly pass resolutions, to refer to international criminal court or all sorts of things could be done. >> isn't israel already a pariah state? half of the resolutions in the united nations seem to conindex israel according to some reports. it's not like the relationship is getting any better with the res

if there's a country that is a threat in the americas, it is the united states. use it has permanently invaded countries, societies and latin america. it has created coup d'États such as animal and -- panama. it doesn't have the most minimal possibility to constitute a threat to the united states, nor does it wish to be in that position. we have no desire a possibility to be a threat. what we want to do is live in peace. and to ask the united states to let latin america live in peace and democracy as is happening at this time. juan: can you tell us more about the offer of your government to mediate? >> it is really a request the government of venezuela has made that ecuador, and so far it is president pro tem, to coordinate with others to give impetus to dialogue with the united states in a decision adopted by the union of south american nations last saturday, which was a hard-hitting decision or clear decision by the 12 south african countries, we rejected the order by the u.s. government. we also called for a dialogue. we see the solution is not violence, the so

in once sense the united states hats to demonstrate to their allies that the united states has sufficient resolve, sufficient cape abouts to deal with the threats that exist to them. on the other hand, the united states does not want them to be provocative regarding china. and what is provocative depends on perceptions and so on. and this sense it seems to me that the united states is facing a kind of -- that they not before. and this will create all kinds of difficulties. one of them coordinating all of the elements. there is the economic, political, the military and so on. so so what extent do you think we are here, beginning to think creatively as to how to deal with this challenge? >> thank you, front row, please? >> i'm arnold zeitland. i have been teaching in china. i think david might be the first to respond to my question. i'm wondering if it is possible to compare u.s. and china military spending on the ppe basis for costs in china in some sectors that are much less. >> david you want to start? >> i was afraid someone would ask this question. i'm not an expert on the chinese mili

drugs to the united states. later on, there was an organization established by the department of ministry in cuba that was called mc. for marijuana-cocaine. huge operation. well eventually, cuban became threatened themselves when the soviet block broke up and there was no more money and there was nobody to support them. that's when they started to look at trying to control these flow of drugs in cuba. but that plan, which perez laid out in the very beginning when we discussed what was happening, the plan -- alpha for the normalization process, and plan b for basically upsetting the cuban community and creating as much difficulty in the united states as they possibly could. on april 14 finally carter established a blockade. the second round of flotilla floated in july. they went around the blockade. bring back up what was happening -- we're about done. the travel agencies, they were all cuban agencies that were involved and monitoringe everyone. cuba is now in the process. thank you, everybody. >> okay. we have no

and for our form of government in the united states the united states government does not own industries. now, some of the industries that are represented within the aec from other countries are at least partially or wholly opened by the state. there's state interest in having those countries in there to be able to develop things within the arctic. we took a different approach. first of all, because of our culture. our government does not own industries. secondly if we start getting too close with industry you start running into federal advisory committee rules that have to be complied with. so our choice whether you like it or don't like it, our choice early on was to turn this over to the chamber of commerce in alaska and the chamber overcomer selected three alaskan companies to be our representatives to the aec and the aec has. just had its first meeting. so i think there are going to be some disputes on how the aec should be used. there will be questions about how we employ it. questions about how much influence it should have on arctic council activities. >> guest: should if have di

first imposed, i think in 2006, the united states followed later. the toughest sanctions came in 2012 when the united states and the eu imposed tough sanctions. a really cratered the economy and iran. it's pretty much what health president rouhani gain -- helped president rouhani gain his election. he understood that the economy was hurting very badly and he would do everything he could to reach an agreement with the west to ease some of these sanctions. i think more of what we would see is very very harsh sanctions, again on tehran. host: what are the sanctions? what sectors does the united states and the world community target to put pressure on iran? guest: most of it is oil and has traditionally been oil. iran sells its oil to india, russia, i believe china as well. oil prices have been dropping. maybe that is not as hard as it has been in the past for iran. also, the gold market has been hit. the financial sector has been hit. the banking market has been hit. more so, -- obviously, the weapons sector has been hit. i'm not sure that would ever be

it has evolved to the point where there was bafflement they were not grateful to the united states for all the freedom we brought them. this to me really underscores how completely muslims are excluded from anything we think about or talk about in the united states. themve debates about without their participation, we have discussions about what they are thinking without actually hearing what they are thinking. we have constant reports about who we are killing and how many people we are killing without ever stopping and thinking about who those people are or whether they have done anything that warranted that violence. so much so it was recently revealed a couple months ago by the new york times the obama administration has adopted a new definition of militants, which says that any military aged male and a strike zone, meaning any male who dies above the age of 16 or below the age of 55, is automatically deemed a militant without knowing anything else about them. this is how we have come to think about muslims, to the extent we think about them all, they die at the hands of our violenc

and so this plan for the canadians, build a pipeline like a strong through the united states to it tax rate export zone and get the oil out of the united states of america. and why is that? i will tell you right now. it is now $12 less if you can get onto the global market. get it out of the american states and you will make $12 more a barrel. the advocates for the pipeline say it won't happen. and so that is white and me not be a member on the senate floor. if you are going to take all the environmental risk, then we should proceed the benefits of the oil being here in the united states. why is that important? it is important for this reason -- the united states is the largest importer of oil in the world. china does not import as much oil as we do. we are the leader. now you might see these ads on television where the american petroleum institute and other oil companies advertise with regards to what a great job we are doing and producing more oil in the united states, and we are producing more oil in the united states. let's take note of that. but the truth is, we are 5 million barr

not something we are doing together and how it will benefit the united states. at the world and how it will be viewed through the eyes of united states and canada working together. we could be energy-secure soon and that would change the world dynamics on much more than it just energy. bags anyone who wants to ask a question, make your way to the microphone. >> i think when you talk about understanding what we have nafta countries represent the 5% of the world's gdp. that is a significant and important fact. we have lost the opportunity to push ahead he yawned the border. it has lost some steam. the regulatory counsel may be more important than the beyond the border program because that would reduce the cost to companies on both sides of the border. get, if you will, standards aligned. we have become focused on this issue and it has taken attention away. it has taken dollars over they. it has become a political talking point. each side uses it in the best of caucus politics to drive home their point of view but it is not constructive and and it is seriously taki

and for our form of government in the united states, the united states government does not own industries. now, some of the industries that are represented within the aec from other countries are at least partially or wholly owned by if state. there's a state interest in having those countries in there to be able to develop things within the arctic. we took a different approach. first of all, because of our culture, once again, our government does not own industries. secondly, if we start getting too close with industry, you start running into federal advisory committee rules that have to be complied with. so our choice, whether you like it or don't like it, our choice early on was to turn this over to the chamber of commerce in alaska. and the chamber of commerce selected three alaskan companies to be our representatives to the aec. and the aec has only just had its first meeting. so i think there are going to be some disputes on how the aec should be used. there will be questions about how we employ it. there will be questions about how much influence should it have on arctic council ac

before the united states join the u.n.uncil in 2009 more than half of all the countries specific resolutions adopted refocused on israel. today we have held lower that proportion to less than one-third. but let me stress, the human rights council still adopted many more resolutions criticizing israel than it has on north korea, a totalitarian state state and roughly 100,000 people are currently being held in gulags and where children are forced to which the execution of their parents. at the security council we have also guarded vigilantly against any resolution that threatens israel's security or undermines the pursuit of peace. that is why in december we opposed efforts to pass a deeply imbalance security council resolution on palestinian statehood, and successfully rallied other countries to do the same. [applause] as i told the u.n. security council at the time the united states recognizes as do many israeli leaders that a two-state solution is vital to ensuring the preservation of a jewish and democratic israel. and w

it shows what happens when the united states disengages from the area that we get this sort of thing. also it leads to the situation which is a bit bizarre where at the start of wednesday the united states joined with iranian proxies in attacking what is perceived to be a threat in iraq. and end the day by joining up with saudi arabia to attack iranian proxies in yemen. and so people believe that perhaps there is a confused foreign policy from the united states. although i am sure the white house will say they are acting always in what is america's strategically best interests. in the next few hours when we start to see people standing in front of the podium at the white house, at the state department and perhaps even at the pentagon we'll get a better idea of what exactly what the united states has done to help saudi arabia and its gulf allies and this operation in yemen and just how much and how far the intelligent and logistical support goes, i don't think it will go much further than that. i don't believe america wants to get dragged too far in. but they are invested in that this.

>> just to be precise, he's here in the united states back in the united states, was deported from turkey to egypt back to the united states. is he in jail now? is he out on bail? what's going on? >> reporter: that's right. he's behind bars and expected to face a judge and plead not guilty according to his attorney sometime tomorrow. so authorities arrested him the day after he returned on u.s. soil in new jersey. he was a resident of new jersey apparently. we know he did live overseas for a period of time. he lived in kuwait. in kuwait he was an airplane mechanic. he also apparently lived in egypt for an amount of time. but the bottom line is this is a u.s. citizen who was in the united states air force and was an aviations mechanic here in the u.s. and overseas, wolf. >> very disturbing development. we'll stay on top of it. pamela brown, thank you. >>> other important news we're following, election day in israel will the prime minister benjamin netanyahu survive a very tough challenge or will his main rival prevail and what will the outcome of the election mean both in israel as well as

president, this is the executive calendar of the united states senate. this calendar tells us the nominations that are pending before the united states senate where action is needed. it is one name to be found on this calendar on page 4, a name which has been sitting on this calendar longer than any nominee for attorney general of the united states of america over the last 25 years. this name has been sitting on this calendar for 20 days, which does not sound like an extraordinary long period of time, but it turns out that the previous nominees were moved so quickly on the senate calendar that the last five combined, by democratic and republican presidents, took less time to be confirmed than this one made -- one name. what is the name? it is loretta e. lynch of new york come up to be attorney general, a name that was submitted to the united states senate by barack obama to make history. a name, a nominee to make history. because, you see, this is the first african-american woman in the history of the united states to be nominated to serve as attorney gen

i don't think the united states entered the negotiations premoo chiewrl. the united states has been involved in the negotiations for a long time. the the question of agreeing to an interim agreement which had a lot of positive stuff but stipulated principals for the final deal which is advantageous, that was a mistake. >> goldberg: tomorrow, israeli elections. how much about the visit was about prevent ago second holokansas and how much was about making sure that the israeli voters return him to power on march 17? >> to be perfectly honest, i'm not sure it's possible to disentangle these things. i don't know if in net nit it's possible to disentang ale these things. >> goldberg: does he believe he is the state himself, the guarantor of their survival? >> no, but h he clearly believes it is his mission, perhaps primary mission as prime minister of israel to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon and to do anything it takes to achieve that goal. so his role as prime minister is to do that. that means it's essential that he be prime minister. i think he ho

to have any indication now of any scheme to attack the united states? no, but the smaller countries, they do not -- we take for granted in the united states that we have a functioning legal justice system, and fbi, layers of clean policemen and women. a lot of these countries do not have that. so when these people return, or where we canurn, monitor them, check them, know when they might be coming back to the united states, if they were from the united states, trinidad, jamaica, places like that, sir nine, small numbers -- surinam, they do not have the ability to take those folks. from a recruiting point of view, like our country in western europe, some get recruited or radicalized off the net, the homepages and whatnot, but there radicaluple of pretty mosques in the region. some of the places i just mentioned. that is how -- radical mosques in the region. 100 is not seem like a lot, and is not come up the little countries they come from, a total inability to do with that, that is what their concern is. reporter: those countries are the main ones -- gene

en then to bludgeon them into a rapprochement with the united states. that will not work with iran. have not changed their position and what is in it for them to have the lifting of sanctions with the new relationship with united states with constructive order in the least. >> through november 2013 with the interim agreement that corner bar again is there is a comprehensive listing of sanctions in exchange for constraints. they have done many of the things they have put on the table but we have the two experts underdoing that but it is sanctions in exchange for doing abc they want them released. >> immediate sanctions relief? >> with their agreement to have the constraints on their program we need to agree to lift the sanctions that is the core bargain and if we don't we will accelerate our loss of leadership with the international economic order in. >> host: new haven in connecticut for the democrat line. >> caller: how is everybody at the table? i simply one to say this to mr. mark dubowitz hillary or anybody else does not tell me how to think. i of an independent thinker. with the

the united states is not part of the airstrikes in pentagonyemen. the united states is providing intelligence. several other gulf countries are threatening to take action in yemen including turkey. there is no talk of ground troops. we are seeing the sunni countries relying on airstrikes. in iraq they are trying to push sunni isis militants out. we were on the sidelines because of the iranian involvement but it has stalled so they are helping out with just reporting intelligence from the drones. the united states is essentially on the side of iran-backed shiite militia in iraq and in yemen they had helping back the iranian rebels. it is very confusing. >> what a chess board that is. >> the administration's reaction to all of this is covered by kevin cork who is live at the white house. >> reporter: good morning to you. you are right about the complications in the region. there is no question it is a very difficult time there. the white house for their part continues to hail yemen as a model of counter terrorism strategy but is quick to point out the

the admiral. i won't repeat the state of play. since the beginning of this crisis, the united states has pursued a multipronged approach. we have raise the costs of russia and reassured our support to security. we have provided support to ukraine. working closely with europe, the administration has imposed real cost on russia. the department of defense has halted military cooperation with russia. they have prohibited exports of technology that could be used in military modernization. we are taking concrete measures to reassure our allies and partners in europe to deter future aggression. the eri is improving facilities needed to reinforce the border. funds will be used to bolster our assistance to the altered partners. as part of our reassurance measures, we have attained a presence of forces in each of the baltic states, poland, and the black sea. we have had a persistent presence in romania and bulgaria. we tripled the aircraft taking part in our policing rotations and refuel aircraft. we of deployed navy ships to the black and baltic seas 14 times and increased training fli

socialist parties here in the united states and the communist party of the united states were powerful. they had a lot of people, and they worked together with the c.i.o. and together, they went to the government at that time, and they said 2 things: "we represent the mass of working people, and we don't want to suffer the way we're suffering in this breakdown of capitalism. you gotta do something." and they addressed themselves to a kind of middle-of-the-road democratic politician who had just gotten elected president on a program of a balanced budget-- franklin roosevelt. and they said to him, "you've gotta do something for the people." and the socialists and communists said, "you gotta do something for the people," but they added a little barb, "because we think that there's a better system, an alternative system, to capitalism. and if you keep performing as badly as you're doing in the depths of the depression, we're gonna try to establish that alternative." and they pointed across the ocean to the soviet union, said, "see? like them." that scared folks. and mr. roosevelt was a goo

at the conferences, the united states was there. the united states was often involved. i think if they had been more formally involved, it would have made the league stronger and served to educate american public opinion. it by the 1930's, the united states was in the league, i wonder if you would have had the same isolationist sentiment. there was a lot of sentiment in europe for peace. there was a huge peace ballot in britain in the 1930's were happy adult population -- half of the adult population voted in favor of peace. that does not necessarily translate into being isolationist. the united states welded it into isolationism in a way that did not happen in europe, that you can want peace but still recognize you have to be engaged in the world. i don't know. it is very difficult. i think historians are now arguing that even in the 1930's, the united states was not as isolationist as we might think. there was a lot of talk, but the united states is still involved, particularly on its own doorstep. the good neighbor policy is a 1930's policy. the united states was stil

the united states and central europe and japan. sociated also with the military arrangement that was one partner. the united states alone, but the united states with its european and japanese alliance. under that, we had the soviet union. [indiscernible] china, which had a degree of independence whether it's internal choices of development or international politics, that was clear and became more clear and clear along with [indiscernible] no less important, out of the conference in 1955. celebrating the anniversary this year. coming out of it, we had the movement of nonaligned countries, which established the one hand, a political [indiscernible] between most nations and states and africa on the one hand, and on the other hand, the reestablishment of the group that was a pattern of globalization. it came for a variety of reasons. therefore, it created as conditions for what i call a counteroffensive or an offensive of imperialism. that is of the allied western major powers. u.s., the european union and japan. attempt to establish th

while they're having nuclear talks with the united states. unately for the last 36 years iran's attacks against the united states have been anything but mock. and the targets have been all too real. been anything but mock. and the targets have been all too real. ave e e e e e you show up. you stay up. you listen. you laugh. you worry. you do whatever it takes to take care of your family. and when it's time to plan for your family's future we're here for you. we're legalzoom, and for over 10 years we've helped families just like yours with wills and living trusts. so when you're ready start with us. doing the right thing has never been easier. legalzoom. legal help is here. just stay calm and move as quietly as possible. no sudden movements. google search: bodega beach house. >>> president obama marking 50 years since the historic march at selma alabama known as bloody sunday standing in solidarity and remembrance with tens of thousands speaking at the foot of the bridge hailing the many women who fought for civil rights a half century ago that

mark: "the wall street journal" reported that israel spied on the united states. es spy on each other all the time. would you tolerate israel spying on the united states? sen. cruz: they reported that israel spied on iran. at the end of the day, it is an interesting thing that in the course of these negotiations, we are apparently communicating the terms of the negotiations with russia and other countries, but not with israel. mark: would you tolerate israel spying on the united states if you were president? sen. cruz: it is no surprise to anyone that countries engage in espionage and defend their own national security. mark: so you would continue to spy on israel? sen. cruz: what every country is going to do is defend their national security. israel lives in a very tough neighborhood. if one thing sadly has been clear in the obama administration, they have real reason to be concerned this administration will not stand with them. john: there is only one potential republican candidate who had some comments about yesterday. >> ted cruz is a conservative. people have

in 2012 alone, extreme weather across the united states cost nearly $120 billion in damages. when they hit the philippines a little over a year ago to the cost of responding exceeded $10 billion because the that is the bill for the storm damage. think of the added health care costs for the, the expenses that result from agricultural environmental degradation. it is time for people to do cost accounting. it's in the if then the price of the immediate energy needs. we have to include the long-term cost of carbon pollution. we have to factor in the cost of survival. and if we do we will find the person being clean energy now is far more affordable than paying for the consequences of climate change later. but there's another piece of reality to take into account. it's to compound and become irrefutable quite frankly. it's not only the solution to climate change guess what it's also one of the greatest economic opportunities of all time. you want to put people to work the global energy market of the future is poised to be the largest market for world has ever known. we are talking

kennedy accepted the nomination for president of the united states. opened up the windows of the world for me and for every young boy and girl in the united states. and then in 1962, ted kennedy ran for the senate for the first time against george cabot lodge. this was my political education, about how a campaign for senator could make an historic difference for massachusetts and for our country. the undreamed of possibilities that teddy and his brothers, president kennedy and bobby, shared inspired a generation of public service. the kennedy brothers taught us to give back to our country, which has given so much to us, and they taught us to be bold. that is what the legacy is of ted kennedy. and it was an honor to serve with and to learn from ted kennedy in congress for 35 years. teddy's compassion was unmatched. his mentorship without peer. his dedication to justice unsurpassed. his ability to work across the aisle the best of any member of the united states congress. and this institute, a hub of history, will take teddy's personal touch and at the p

so citizens although they may not like the united states or don't like or appreciate u.s. policies in the region, they do see the geo-strategic utility and benefit from having choser relationships with the united states. so citizens are looking to the united states, and what the united states is signaling in terms of figuring out whether or not the way they engage their regimes or contest their regimes or demand regime change whether this is going to be beneficial or not for the u.s. geo-strategic interest. does that make sense, peter? is it a bit complicated? it is complicated. so in other words, you take a country like egypt, right? and you had an overthrow in egypt which led to the exile of mubarak, right? and what happens there is a debate ensues, right in you have mohamed morsi elected by a democratic majority, you know slightly so. and then a debate ensues about whether or not the muslim brotherhood of egypt is going to be beneficial not only to egyptians, but if you look at a debate that even ensued in the united states, it was a debate about whether the muslim broth

their master to the united states tweeted this. the rush to get an accord, a framework accord by the end of the month the e agreement may not be as good as it needs to be. by setting a deadline, the u.s. is undermining its leverage to get an agreement. this is a debate between the united states and its own allies. right after saying that, we movede flew to london, and he met with the french and the british on that very question. the reason secretary kerry is saying that is because people -- they are really worried about congress. they worry that unless they show visible progress, something tangible, specific limits, verification provisions, that congress may move ahead and the more stringent economic sanctions that could hurt the atmosphere for the talks. kerry is in a very delicate situation. he is trying to deal with iran on the one hand, and congress on the other and balance off those two factors. that's what's leading the united states to seek a framework accord by march 31. host: michael gordon writes for "new york times." tha

russia felt isolated and alone and increasingly surrounded by the united states. not just politically but even in terms of the nato alliance. there were outspoken calls in the united states and elsewhere for countries bordering on russia to join nato. we have already got russian miferlsmissiles peeking into estonia and latvia, now the area around russia has awakened russian nationalism, president putin's popularity ratings are going through the ceiling. >> i really hear you. but those people whose countries border russia, lath latvia, lithuania l estonia, poland, would supersede the rights of superpowers to have their buffer zones and their strategic debt. depth. >> i would say that's true but we live in the real world. i would say in the basket of countries you just mentioned countries. there are some countries that the united states has given ironclad security guarantees with the form of nato membership. we've made that commitment and we can -- now comes the question -- >> those countries i claimed are all nato countries except for ukraine. >> indeed so ukraine i

they're wonderful friends of the united states. have been from the very beginning and let's face it, they're the people right now on the ground that we can most depend upon. when the oil field of occur kirk were taken and the iraqi army fled, it was the peshmerga that came in and took it back. they now control a big part of the oil that used to be the iraqis'. we're going to debate over that. i don't think it's quite as bad as this gentleman laid out, just for what it's worth. they come see us often and when they came to see me here in washington, i was pretty upset about the delivery schedule of arms and equipment to them. as i've gotten there on the ground dealing with generals that i know well, ok. and generals who i know have an affinity towards talking to guys like me and telling us the truth, i don't think it's quite as bad as people say it is. i think the deliveries are going into baghdad -- there were stories it was taking a month or so for that equipment to get to kurdistan. i'm it's not that way at all. there's a movement

the admiral. i won't repeat the state of play on the minsk agreement. since the beginning of this crisis, the unitedvigorously pursued a multipronged approach. we have raised the cost to russia for its actions, we have assured allies unwavering support, and provided tangible support through bodies to ukraine. the department of defense has halted corporation with russia. the administration is also prohibiting exports of sensitive technology and and post sanctions on 18 rushing defense firms. second, we are taking concrete measures to reassure our allies and to deter further rushing aggression. -- russian aggression. thanks to congress, the european reassurance initiative is helping the department to increase and enhance united states air, sea, and ground presence in europe and to improve facilities needed to enforce allies along the border with russia. additionally, funds will be used to bolster assistance to ukraine and baltic partners. as part of our reassurance measures, we have maintained a persistent presence in each of the baltic states, poland, and the black sea since april of last year. we ha

that is in the best interest of the united states, our allies in the region. we also believe it is in the best interest of our partners in the region as well, including saudi arabia. the united states as we are doing right now in yemen has taken steps to support saudi arabia's national security and to advance their interests in the region. we do that in a way that is consistent with u.s. interests of course. we believe this is another way that we can do that. preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is in the best interest of saudi arabia. we say that because a nuclear armed iran is only more destabilizing. it only makes more dangerous the kind of support they can offer terrorist organizations. it only makes it easier and more dangerous for iran to meennace those countries the united states have strong relationships, including israel and potentially saudi arabia. we believe that preventing iran from obtaining nuclear weapons through diplomacy is the best way for us to get a good outcome. by good outcome, i mean an outcome that is consistent with national

racism is a very serious problem in the united states. look at the scholarly work on george fredrickson's study of the whites primacy comparative study -- was supremacy, comparative study. he concludes the white supremacy in the united states was even more extreme and savage than in south africa. just think of our own history. our economy, our wealth, privilege relies very heavily on a century of horrifying slave labor camps. con production was not just the fuel of the industrial revolution, it was the basis for the financial system, the merchant system, commerce in would as well. these were bitter, brutal slave labor camps. there's a recent study by edward baptiste that comes out with some sparkling information. the title is something like "the have that was never told." he shows pretty convincingly in the slave labor camps, the plantations, will call them politely, the productivity increased more rapidly in an industry with no technological advance, just the bullwhip, just by driving people harder and harder to the point of survival. the

states, the congress of the united states met in the pennsylvania statehouse. but the soldiers were not stupid. what they wanted was to demand that pay and various other promises made to them. the new congress had no revenue. there was no point confronting congress. it was the states that had the revenue. they chose saturday because congress never met on a saturday, but the executive they surrounded the statehouse, and alexander hamilton, who was the chairman of a congressional committee to deal with this mutiny that had been going on now for five days got congress to call a special session. the congressman went into the building, because hamilton and congress wanted it to appear this was a demonstration against the united states of america. this was the horror of the republic, the military rising against civilian control. and that would appeal to the american people's feelings and they would come to the defense of congress. so, congress, even though they did not get a quorum, congress was not surrounded by these troop

was a student who decided to come to the united states to pursue a phd in nuclear engineering. he arrived at the university of missouri to study and obtained his phd and decided along with his wife he wanted to stay in the united states and work in the united states rather than returning to iraq. work as aand got research professor at the university of missouri, became an integral part of the columbia community. he and his wife ultimately had five children, all of them american-born u.s. citizens. the problem is beginning of the early 1990's, for the next decade, he had numerous family member still in iraq, including 11 siblings, along with his elderly mother who was blind. millions ofs and iraqis, his family members were not just suffering great deprivation, although they were, they were literally on the boundary of starvation, typically unable to feed themselves in any way that provides major sustenance. this is incredibly common among the regime sanctions. although he was earning a modest salary, he simply could not in good conscious live even what was really a lower middle-c

it is beneath that the decarlo dignity in the united states senate. this woman deserves fairness she seeks to leave the department of justice in the united states senate should be just in its treatment of her nomination. to think that we would jeopardize her opportunity to serve this nation and to make history is fundamentally unfair. >> i come to the floor today to address a very serious accusation leveled yesterday against republican members of this body by the democratic with the senator illinois. i do with some regret -- the senator illinois and i have been friends for many years served in a house together and here in this body of work together. that is why i was so surprised and disappointed in the comments he made yesterday on the floor senate comments that are totally inappropriate to be made on the floor of the senate. my colleague illinois said and i quote from the majority leader announced that are going to hold this nomination lynch until the bill which is pending before the senate passes, whatever that may be. then then he went on to say, a

the united states at 19%. is the number of woman in a legislative body translate to better legislation for women's rights? guest: yes. there is no question. the higher percentage of woman participating, the more emphasis on the social programs, health care, and the quality of life. the more women that participate in the civil society, you have real gains. like an education. if you educate women, you have a multiplier effect. everyone wins. society as a whole wins. you have an increase in the gross domestic product. you're hitting poverty at a much higher rate. this is not just here -- berry, the data substantiates it. host: dave in north carolina independent line. you're on the air. caller: good morning. i would like to know from your host, what president has appointed women to the highest position in american history? which president has done that? guest: you want me to answer that? it is easy. the most appointments have come from president obama. almost 47% of his -- for example judiciary appointments are ver

i've traveled as i said all over the united states many times. but there's one state in particular that you just can't get past. it's always stood out. it's way down south but among all the states those are the friendliest people in the whole country. there is no getting around even when it even when i was a student at duke university we would go to south carolina to buy fireworks and they were always friendly to us. that might have changed nowadays but the important part is the people. the people were always hospitable and each which way. you couldn't imagine more friendly people even those of the opposite political persuasion. they would hope they could change your mind that in but in our family of her mind was made up mostly because the president on the corner over there is the one that persuaded the nixons way back to change from democrat to republican and my dad never could get it out of his system so we've always been republicans in name at least and the rest of it comes naturally. as a follow-up in the northern part of south carolina that i

the united states wantses to nail down a deal and there is a similar divergence with the united states that netanyahu has exposed on peace between israelis and palestinians. while a plurality of palestinians still support a two-state solution nearly two decades of u.s.-sponsored negotiations have failed to achieve that. successive israeli governments whether on the left or the right have pledged to hold on to gentlemenjerusalem -- none of that is likely to change with israel's next government but the rift that netanyahu did so much to expose with the obama administration is going to confront whoever leads israel's next government. we go now to tel aviv and dana lewis. yesterday we spoke about whether or not this was a referendum over netanyahu's push for iran or negotiations in israel. do the exit polls tell us anything about which argument won out? >>reporter: well it may be overly simplistic to say -- netanyahu certainly focused on the security issues in his campaign but also here at the headquarters of the left they really believe that people caught fire with the economy and the eco