want the entire world to be dominated by one power the united states of america they recognize that the existence of iran as an independent government is something that is positive meaning that if the united states were were were to be successful in carrying out regime change in iran they would be emboldened to carry out further destabilizing efforts against other powers including russia and china by the way even though there are great powers. so i think that iran has allies and i think iran is trying to show that they can weather the storm and also that they can rally their population in spite of the fact the divisions that were revealed in two thousand and nine after the elections the presidential elections the iranian people as a whole don't believe they should be sanctioned the iranian people believe that they have as they do the right to develop nuclear power for peaceful civilian purposes and i think right now the iranian government is trying to weather the storm they're also making it clear that they don't options that they have they have limited options they have limited options and and that's the big issue here i think is t

but it's not a liability that the united states government can never meet because the u.s. government is the monopoly issuer of the dollar our debts are denominated in dollars and so therefore it's not a dead where we have borrowed another currency or it's tied to some fixed rate of exchange or there's a gold backing or something like that and the proof is in the putting lauren i mean we've been hearing so much about the debt in the united states and remember it's and p. downgraded the credit rating of the united states and guess what interest rates have been going down down down down down and we were warned that oh gosh if this ever happened we're going to see a spike in interest rates and foreigners are going to sell their bonds and foreigners are selling their bonds the chinese have been selling a lot of their u.s. securities interest rates are going down and that simply because the rate is set by the fed i mean that's the way it works is mike isn't that an unsustainable model ok we're talking about rates being loud and they're low because the every

>> the united states government. >> host: under autonomous canal zone authority? talked about the supreme court. >> guest: there was a separate judicial system but it was part of the appellate courts of the united states government. the chief engineer of the canal zone had remarkable autonomy. he reported to the secretary of war who was william howard taft. >> host: george washington goebbels was the president of the canal zone? >> guest: yes. he had tremendous authority. like it said about himself, he was a benevolent dictator. it was a very paternalistic system. he was admired by many in the canal zone because he did run things very efficiently. it was a very orderly zone. he got the canal built faster than many thought it could be done. he prided himself on being a fatherly figure to the zone of workers. he would meet sunday morning with anyone who wished to meet with him from the lowliest washerwoman to a wheat supervisor and foreman but his authority, as fatherly as he might be his authority was complete. one observer said we all like the chief engineer but w

want the entire world to be dominated by one power the united states of america they recognize that the existence of iran as an independent governmentis something that is positive meaning that if the united states were were were to be successful in carrying out regime change in iran they would be emboldened to carry out further destabilizing efforts against other powers including russia and china by the way even though there are great powers that presidential elections have any say in what's going on in what's going to happen with iran in terms of washington. i think the presidential elections in the united states definitely play a role in u.s. policy towards iran that by the way has been the case ever since the iranian revolution in iran has factored into american politics in this case the republican candidates are sort of baiting obama in. suggesting that if obama is reelected we will have a nuclear armed iran someday soon well i might do something just to counter their statements because it's an election year i don't think so i think that it's not out of the question that obama could opportunistically up the ante or even escalate

the united states government has created an artificial crisis that's first and foremost it's a manufacturedcrisis iran is complying with the. iran does not have a nuclear weapon iran is not threaten its neighbors iran has not started a war with any of its neighbors israel on the other hand has hundreds of nuclear weapons and unlike the run refuses to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty does not allow. inspectors into its country so there's not really a nuclear menace or a nuclear danger from iran and so what is the cause of the artificial crisis the real goal is the united states government has embarked on a course of extreme economic aggression against iran with the hope that by creating economic suffering economic isolation economic misery that part of the population will rise up or become disenfranchised with the government so that the u.s. can do as it has in history carry out regime change. you can hear the full version of last interview in just over an hour's time here on our team coming up in the next few minutes though pro-democracy anniversaries marked across the middle east f

at no point, however, has the united states government been willing to give any unilateral concessions to the castro regime or to ease sanctions as a means to secure mr. gross's release. we think this should be done as a matter of humanitarian concern, as evidence that, you know, the castro regime is, you know, willing to demonstrate that it is, you know, moving in a different direction. but it hasn't happened yet. so we have not had any success in our diplomacy. we'd like to see mr. gross home. but we have made no deals. we've offered no concessions. and we don't intend to do so. >> thank you. i'd also like to associate myself with my colleague, chris smith, on the human rights abuses. especially what's going on in egypt with the christians. i have a big population of christians in my district. they're very concerned about the family members they have back home. i hope we continue to speak out on their behalf. i also -- i know you didn't address this. but if we could use our leverage with the oas to speak up more on human rights abuses, you know, that would be great. one of the things

it is a serious doctrinal change for the united states government. i, mike rogers believes as a member of this committee, seeing the information that we collect, tracks very well of why this is a bad idea. i just want to make sure that they're seeing what we're seeing, so that we can come to the conclusion together and why i think there was so much bipartisan opposition to the nsc's consultation with the congress if you will so i'm trying to establish basically what we're all looking at so we can all determine from policy perspective this say good or not good idea for the national security of the united states. so i understand your aversion to the policy debate but unfortunately, you fuel the information that policymachers are going to use to make this decision. so i'm just trying to set the record straight. >> yes, sir, i understand and i would make clear that intelligence community has been a large part of the deliberations inner agency and i don't think anyone harbors any illusions, certainly not in the administration about whether this, and there