Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20150214 : comparem

http://twitter.com/cspanwj. you can also find us on facebook at www.facebook.com/cspan. or e-mail us, journal@c-span.org . "what matters more to america -- brian williams leaving, or john stuart announcing stepping down from his post on "the daily show." "it turns out that most americans do not even know who williams is. i." a survey found that only 29% of america could identify brian williams from a photograph. 15% of those were able to identify him from the age of 19 to 25. 34% of those 65 and older. audiences have been losing in just a news anger since 1980, the story reports. 30 years ago nearly one half of americans can identify dan rather. byin 1985, about half of americans watched news. our first caller is arthur from corpus christi, texas. he is a republican. good morning, arthur. caller: good morning. i love c-span. i haven't been out very long but you said something that got me on my emotional side about the media. to tell you the truth i have a hard time trusting any of them. host: what makes you feel that way? caller: fox, nbc, cbs -- everything is run by these big club garments. -- conglomerates. sometimes i get to the point where i think is there really such a thing as isis? or are we all be lied to? that sort of thing. host: let me ask you this -- what would it take news organizations to win your trust back and make you feel like they are there for you? caller: there would have to be a new network. who come forth with the claim that they are totally independent. and back that up with some sort of credential. host: we are going to pontiac illinois. james, a democrat, is on the line. caller: first time i ever got through before. most of the time i trust most of the news media. i prefer msnbc. they are the best one that i have found. fox is good also. they are pretty fair and straightforward. they do the best they can as far as putting out the news on what they can get from the politicians. i still think c-span does a better job than any of them. host: shrewsbury, pennsylvania. gerald, a republican. good morning. caller: there was a study done not too long ago in journalism schools and they has to its why they were there. their answer was to change the world. that is not answering, who, why when where, and why. that's all you have to know, they wanted to change the world. host: see you think it starts pretty young russian mark caller: absolutely. if that is their mind going into journalism. host: what should be the role of journalists in the united states? caller: to answer -- deliver the news. the who, what, when, where, why. not their personal opinions. host: do you think you trust american journalism today? caller: not at all. i want to hear editorials on the editorial page and not in the news. host: we will be joined by frank newport now from gallup. good morning, frank. guest: good to be with you. host: i gallup, you annually track how much trust americans have in the media. how does it look? guest: it is down. the way we phrase it is how much trust you have what it comes to the news reporting accurately and fairly? and the clinton years, there were was 55%. now we are at 40%. host: we have been talking this morning about the story that brian williams has been suspended by the network for six months for his embellishments. what do you expect the story -- how will that impact tt this study when you do it again in november. guest: we also have another track where we track confidence and institutions. television is one of those. that is down to 18%. it was as high as 45%. it is down to 18% what we update it last year. an answer to your question, the brian williams scenario played out in this climate of already declining trust in the news media on the part of americans. many americans would say, yeah what is new? this is not necessarily biased. i think it can't do anything but reinforce what is already going on. whether he can drop much more or not, that is a different question. host: from your research, either factors that americans consider when they trust the mass media? guest: one factor is partisanship. it is clear in the day that analyze instances that republicans have jumped off further than democrats. for whatever reason, you have conservatives and republicans over the last 10 or 15 years who have become more likely to be distrustful of mainstream media. there is a clear partisan differentiation in other words. where that came from -- it is the chicken or that i. you have radio talkshow host playing into conservative of motions of the immediately by us. i do not know where the holes cycle started. those sentiments out there and people taking advantage of it to make money. nevertheless that is part of the factor clearly that there is a narrative out there that we see in our date, more so on the right than the last, about the mainstream media being bias. that brings down the overall numbers. host: you talk a lot about the television media. what can tell us about other mediums of news? guest: we do not track radio regularly. people ask about that a lot. i am on a radio show. we have in our list of things we check, internet news. it is actually low as well. slightly above television. we also have old-fashioned newspapers. it is low as well, but above television and internet. of the three that we had in her most recent, television new was slightly below the other two. host: frank newport of gallup. thank you so much for joining us this morning. we'll take a look now at a cartoon that appeared in this morning's "washington post." it is from the iwo jima memorial. the caption saying, "is that brian williams." our question this morning -- what is the state of journalism in america? jaded n writes -- "when news organizations are division of a large enterprise they become suspect." one of your rights -- trust will come back when the msm covers the real news, if i can find online they should cover it. we will read you one more tweet. "journalism is ambulatory and on life support. they used to expose the truth the real truth to the population, not anymore. ." joe is on the data line from massachusetts. caller: good morning. i would like to nominate jon stewart for the presidential freedom award for his great service to this country. host: what makes you say that? what do you like about john stewart? caller: he exposes the hypocrisy of the media. he is always pointing out the fallacy the people here on fox noise -- because you cannot call that news. i think he was a great asset to our country. college students for the last 17 years have had john stewart to guide them through the noise of the news. host: joe manchi mentioned the role john stewart has had on young americans. 39% of daily show viewers were between 18 and 29. that group takes up just 23% of the public as a whole. that is a demographic that politicians kill for. it explains why those running for office, particularly democrats, connect with stewards urban, less leading audience. his work serves a lot of the same function as traditional network news shows. from philadelphia, mark on the democrat line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. great subject. first of all the state of journalism in america. american news stations cable news, i do not even watch them anymore. i watch al jazeera. rt -- russia today. a very good station on cable. occasionally bbc. most cable news to me is just entertainment, kind of being fluffed off as news. it's all corporate. you do not get the true story. i see specials on out of that are absolutely phenomenal. you would never see them on american network news. brian williams making all th that money. it's like going into an old age home. you only have these old guys. come on. let's get with the program. host: this week also saw the death of two noteworthy journalists. bob simon, a longtime correspondent from "60 minutes." he was 73 years old. in this morning's "wall street journal" -- "i think nbc essentially ended williams's career. he could not continue because he canno longer report or grill with a story is lies, and in modern america of the stories always lies. the 2016 presidential campaign has already begun. there will be famous dave's and embellishments. how can a reporter asked questions when hise is known to embellish." next up is chris from alabama. caller: i think there are several reasons. you have to look at the big picture. you have to look at corporations. you have to mainly look at the supreme court. campaign reform. it is corporations. if corporations are people and money equals free speech. where does that leave the average citizen? corporations, certain entities owning more and more media outlets, fewer and fewer people control the news. in congress, it's like they get out of office to become lobbyists. lobbyists for what? the super pac's. we don't know what the money is coming from. when you look at -- if corporations are people, money is free speech, and super pac's are legal. democracy is almost gone. there is also the problem of advertorial. where cbs will promote drones shows throughout the newscast. watch sunday at 7:00 p.m. for this whole story. bloomberg came out and said, we will do more advertorial. we will promote ourselves. when you have a news organization promoting themselves, you have a system where corporate money drives and owns a lot of it, then there's almost no place for the voter the average person have a voice. thank you. host: our topic this morning is your views on the state of journalism in it america. another death in journalism this week was david carr. carr was the author of the times media equation column. he died at the age of 58. out of englewood, new jersey sandra is on the democrats line. caller: hello. i am a long time listener and the first caller. the reason i'm calling -- i'm on the democrat line. it's because i think the worst thing that nbc could have done was to spreadend brian williams. we needed to hear exactly what he meant when he said what he did. if we can allow elected politicians to tell annabelle her story, why would we think any differently of brian williams? he is a human being like everyone else. we all make mistakes. in the meantime, we have people that relate to brian williams incident the ratings would've gone through the roof had brian williams say in his job. i'm so sorry they suspended him. a cute. host: -- thank you. host: let's turn to some headlines this morning. supporters of the affordable care act are conducting a late push. so-called "younger invisibles" who consider themselves immune to illness. the white house cranks up its online outreach for health care with a video by is feed featuring president barack obama practicing his jump shot and ad admiring himself and sunglasses. right now we'll take a look at that video. [video clip] >> the deadline for signing up for health insurance is february -- that's not right. february -- february 15. you can get health insurance for less than 100 dollars per month. go to healthcare.gov to find out. february 15. >> thanks, obama. >> thanks, obama. collects pretty good. collects that's pretty good. >> down by one. he gets it. >> mr. president? collects can i live? >> you do you. >> yolo, man. host: that was president obama making his pitch for twentysomethings to enroll in the affordable care act. it is worth noting that the bu zzfeed editor in chief said they had an interview with obama recently. on the front page of "the washington post" -- oregon governor stopping down. "governor john kitzhaber ritchie is on the state capitol on friday afternoon. he announced his r resignation in a letter. here is fi -- he and his fiancee, sylvia hayes, continue to be investigated for misusing their influence for personal financial gain. his resignation will take affect on wednesday at which point the secretary of state will take over. we will go back to our phone lines and the state of the media in america. andrew is on the line for republicans. caller: people often complain about corporations being people. corporations are made up about employees. -- by employees. their unions can take actions. if other groups to get together and form political action committees so that they can have a voice, corporations need to have an equal standing. people often joke about that. "corporations are people." they are made up of people in the industry. it is annoying to listen to people. if you turn around and ask them, fine. should every group not be able to get together and have a political voice." ? they will immediately say, no. it is that clash on anyone who makes a profit. also i would bet that the oregon governor did not get federally prosecuted as did bob dell from virginia because he has is a democrat. have a good day. host: frank in south carolina. independent. what do you think the state other media is today? caller: is fox news were held to the same standards of brian williams. it seems like they are half news and half height. every hour on the hour, fox is bashing the president. saturday morning early. bashing the president first thing in the morning. is that really news? why don't you say fax. telefax. be all opinionated. it is ridiculous. at least at msnbc. i don't remember the bashing bush like that. they may tell the truth about the iraq war. but bashing him 24/7, and they call themselves the news network? it is ridiculous. host: we will look at more of your tweets. "if you watch a certain network you see a topic of its way for seven. ." "journalism is no lawyer just a morning paper and the nightly newscast. it is also cnn, fox, msnbc twitter and youtube. ." "days of w walter cronkite are over. news media has been taken over by political hacks." finis on mind http://twitter.com/cspanwj. jeffrey on the democrats line. caller: i would just like to wish all of the ladies and do you, a happy valentine's day today. you are so wonderful. i was want to wish all of you wonderful ladies happy valentine's day. i lost my wife of 64 years last year. i know she is in heaven. i'm going to celebrate valentine's day, and you women are so wonderful. it breaks my heart to hear some of the men and how they talk about women. the war on women in all those things. host: happy valentine's day to you. what are your thoughts on the state other media? caller: i don't think they report the news fairly for minorities. some of the things i hear -- they won't report the news fairly for minorities. i see things that happened regularly in my state. they beheaded at man right here in my state and it never made the news. we talk about isis. and one man right here killed his own son. he was white man. it happened. no by commits crimes but african americans they don't report the news fairly. a lot of them just call in on c-span, and they say things that are not true. they make up things. c-span is too great of a place to let people get on and tell lies. that's why don't like about the media. never call them out when they tell lies. just make up things. most of them are white males and women to. most of them are never true. hold their feet to the fire. a just upsets me. thank you. host: another headline this morning. this one is from "bloomberg news." barbara bush on jed -- "i change my mind." "barbara bush cleared the path for another fun to run for president. i've changed my mind, she said. her announcement came via skype to supporters of her family literacy foundation. while her son, jeb bush, sat on stage gladly welcoming her approval he said, can i get that in writing? " we will go to jean on the republican line. caller: hello. while you protect about journalism, i've not heard anyone mention intimidation. intimidation from the government. i think it does happen. it has always happened. i don't just mean this in ministration. presently, this in ministration tops them all. the wanted since i can think of it is bob woodward was talking about something that recently happen. i don't remember what it was about. all i remember was that he said, this is madness. then, about one week after, he retract or he said. the reason i noticed him is because he is very well known. but, i heard it many other times in the news where a reporter would say one thing, or pundit would say one thing, and about one week later they would retract it. there was even the incident, in one of the southern states, -- while i can't remember. it's i won't talk about it. all i know is that i think the media is void about what to do. some of them are threatened that they will l to lose their job and others are threatened that the whole paper will shut down. this is happen in recent news. people who watch news a lot will remember it. i think that ought to be considered. if not just the journalists. look at rosen, james rosen. what happened to him. i think it was all slept under the rug, i don't hear the about anymore. the administration goes after the journalists. they don't want them to say certain things. people should remember that. is not just the journalists fault. there is a whole credit thing going on in his country. it is not good. host: an editorial from the "l.a. times". they write -- "brian williams got his facts wrong about his fight in the iraq war zone in 2003. then he got the apology wrong. on saturday, with more public statements he stepped aside as a good temporarily while nbc investigates. his travails are the latest in illustration of the perils of celebrity journalism in which the story takes a backseat to the person telling it. williams plunge in believability harms not only himself, but potentially all serious analysts to rely on the trust of the audiences." joe in north charleston,. what do you think about journalism? caller: it is poor. i got you just read the article. it hurts brian's behavior -- his behavior hurts the industry in general. let me go back to where caller said. she mentioned walker cronkite. my daddy said that when he retired, there goes the integrity. of course, they replaced him with dan rather's. that says something. another lady from new jersey i offer this respectfully, she was trying to justify ryan's actions because elected officials lie. ma'am, we have come to expect elected officials to lie, sadly. the brian williams of the world are supposed to expose the truth of those lies. let me say it some of c-span and other outlets. there is no outlet that has azone. they all -- if you watch c-span, you will see hearings, speeches on the floor, no commercials. another good channel is the dod channel. they go to the depth of the pentagon. we are smart enough to know how to analyze. brian williams would make a good novelist. someone has to step up and restore trust. host: thomas on the democrats line. what do you think? caller: i disagree vigorously with one of your black callers who said that the media is discriminatory against minorities. if anything, the media is antiwhite. it is very liberal that runs -- it is a very liberal group that runs the media in this country. eric holder is an antiwhite racist. there is no criticism of al sharpton another antiwhite racist. he visited the white house 80 times. it is disgraceful that obama brought him in. you have the knockout game. blacks attacking whites. it is never called a crime. white people need to speak out and fight this discrimination because it will destroy their children if they do not wake up and get rid of this politically correct nonsense. it is the disease. you have two teams. a football player that won nine games, but he cannot get a job even as a backup, because he is white and politically conservative. host: let's stick with the state of the media. that is our topic this morning. we are going to go ahead and move on. go to a couple of your tweets. "perhaps we have been less tolerant of any information we disagree with i gravitate to just what we want to hear." orlando, florida. alan is on the line. caller: good morning. we love c-span. it's a whole different story when you watch a hearing on c-span and when you see what is reported on the news. it's just a sample, what has happened here. it's just not the obama situation. it is a liberal bias. bertie goldman has written a book on bias. cheryl atkinson was a reporter for cbs. she could never get her stories on their. regarding the bias in the media. nbc president, ben sherwood, the brother of elizabeth sherwood randall, the top security advisor for obama. david rose is the news division president. his brother is benjamin rose who works for obama. you've got the cnn bureau chief she is married to the secretary of state under hillary clinton. you have the james rosen situation where his phone and his parents phone was barred by eric holder. let's see here. the cheryl atkinson book is very interesting. she had written a love story that got and means what stories regarding things that bush did that she felt was incorrect. when she started writing stories that she thought needed to be investigated, she is a true investigated journalists, she would get them to the wire and they would never get on air. she reported on the irs hearings , which was very interesting the other day on c-span. now, they found the e-mails. everyone has heard the story. it's not being reported. how things are being reported in the news -- the race thing. i am 60 years old. this country has come so far towards the good. i think people get along so much better than what is per trade in the media. the duke lacrosse story. it is terrible. nbc, the final thing -- when they were reporting on trayvon martin, they reported that he said -- when zimmerman was following trayvon martin, he said, black guy. what had happened was a 911 operator asked, is he black or white? they only reported that he has a black guy. it made it sound like he was a racist. when you read the whole 911 interview, the abc did not put on the air, and bc put that he was a black person. they did not put the part where the 911 operator asked. they came off as a bias. it does not help this country. they are inflaming the racist card. it is a shame. i work with so many good black people. we have done so much. we have work to do. it is not perfect. we have come a long way. the administration, along with eric holder, these people. they have not done a service to the black people. they have heard our relations with black people. it is a very disappointing to have our first black president not try to help us come together more. thank you for taking my call. host: if you're interested in seeing the video of the hearing that the caller as mentioned you can go to our video library at www.c-span.org. we'll take you to another news outlet now. "the same people that dan rather once attracted have reconstructed the media. ryan williams would still be doing the nightly news and going after jay leno's job. alec baldwin would still be screening on paparazzi between unwatchable interviews. the mainstream media will still wield outside power, and when they decide on the narrative have the ability to drive into the minds of aliens of americans. no one trusts that mainstream media to fact check itself anymore. that and it of itself is a massive change in american politics." that is an article from ben schapiro. next up, let's go to randy from wisconsin. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm going to stick. for brian rosen. with fox news. he was reporting on something that the president did not like. and eric holder. they are the ones who jog into him and tried to smear him. a lot of the news media stuck up for him. you go back to all the lies that have been told. you just mentioned, dan rather. look at what he said about george bush. i think he lost his job over that. brian williams. he probably would have still been there. he has distorted so may fax. dan rather's and brian williams are such big liberals in the news media. do you know -- i can't think of one. look at president obama. the stuff he has spoken out on. you can keep your health care if you like it. there are so many things that is the ministration is told a lie on. bill clinton. my read to us. shook his finger at us and said he did not have sex with that wi wolman. -- that woman. there is only one good reporter. 98% of the time, that is rush limbaugh. you really ought to get the true facts. they have tried to take them down. they hate him. president obama talks about trying to get after rush limbaugh. but they cannot do it. he's got the fax. host: mike in texas. on the democrats line. caller: tennessee. host: sorry about that. good morning. caller: brian williams, it's a fish story. we all tell fish stories. there were three helicopters two of them were being shot at. his did not get hit. by the time you land, you are excited. it's basically a fish story. if they want to talk about some of the media, they ought to talk about fox. over 60% of what they reported last year -- you can fact check this -- over 60% of what they reported last year on their show was lies. how can they let the station keep doing this over and over again? i do not get it. the sensationalizing of these stories, trayvon martin, ferguson. it is just sensationalism journalism at it hurts this country. it does not help. yet, they do it every time unless another story comes out. it's depressing sometimes. i think they need to get these people may keep them from lying. fire them all. if they find out they are lying, fire them. firing -- host: you do not think brian williams should have been fired though? caller: he got six months for stretching the truth. host: all right. let's go to brian, texas. caller: hello. i've been around for about 85 years. i'm thinking over a large amount of time. one thing that i think has not been mentioned at the present time is the effect that the internet has had on standard media, both in terms of how they presented, and under the sick circumstances under which they present their information. i think the real thing -- the main media is still struggling with idea of how to begin involved in terms of news that is consistent with the internet but yet, needs to be covered in other ways. the fact is that the internet -- or what is given on it is not under any kind of screwed and sc kind of scrutiny. the main problem is the internet. thank you. host: our last call on the segment comes from florida. kelly. caller: i think one thing that is very important to keep in mind about journalism today is it seems like you've got democrats journalists republican journalists. your conservative news and your liberal news. i think news really should be objective. that is something a lot of journalists forget. somewhere along the lines. a statement i heard recently from people in journalism -- other students who are studying like me say you fake it until you make it. i think objective journalism has been lost somewhere along the line. sometime in our career, we say obviously my viewpoint will not be published, what i need to do is what they are telling me to do. host: are you a journalism student? caller: yes. host: when you're looking for a job, what do you think when you see what is going on now? caller: i am terrified. i think i will not make it. if i do not publish one easy published based on whoever my editor is, it will not get published. fighting a full-time job iss a big concern for me and actually may be a deterrent from me continuing. host: what about the credibility issue that we been talking about. a lot of people do not trust journalists anymore. caller: i think we have a lot of platforms. you have twitter. everybody and anybody can post on twitter. they can post their own personal thoughts. you have to follow those leads and figure out how credible they are. if you don't look at that, it could be a very murky water to walk in. not to mention that you have facebook. it is a major platform as well. people posting their videos on facebook. as a journalist, today, you have to be able to publish things yourself. added them yourself. find information yourself. let's face it, the internet -- you can get lost in the internet if you're not careful. you can find information everywhere. i big influence for me and the way i look at journalism is that it is our job to tell the truth. true ja true journalist named doris gibson from peru. that magazine was shot down eight different times by the peruvian government. our job is to tell the story of our people. if we do not look for the truth, of course people will not trust us. that's why i think we should give up conservative news and liberal news and just tell the fax. host: we are going to take a break and when we come back, we will be joined by catherine lotrionte date. later on in the program, we will talk about the state of same-sex marriage in america and the upcoming supreme court case on the issue. "newsmakers" set down with anthony foxx for this week show. during the interview, he talks about the funding for the ministry should propose $478 billion plan to repair the nation's roads and bridges. [video clip] >> you are proposing something spending. to pay for them apart is from overseas profits. is it realistic to expect republicans to raise taxes on u.s. corporations? particularly given the anti-tax sentiment in the gop base. >> first of all, the proposal that the administration has put out is use pro growth tax reform to pay for our bill. actually, our proposal acts in reducing corporate tax rates by removing the 35% tax rate that would apply to overseas foreign earnings that currently are not taxed. if they were brought back, there would be a 35% rate that would apply to them. our proposal would be to tax those overseas profits once. and bring those over here to put towards infrastructure. it would pay for our bill and get us about double of what the gas tax now is producing. >> have you talked to gop lawmakers and specifically talk to them on this proposal? >> the proposal has enjoyed bipartisan support in many ways. if you remember, about one year ago, the chair of the house ways and means committee at that time put a proposal out there. that use this very same framework. we think it is a framework the connection work. >> there was a hearing in the house earlier this week. some members of your party, and the other party, where a little skeptical that this plan and enjoy this much bipartisan support as you are suggesting. what do you say about the skeptics? >> it's like what they say about democracy, it is the worst system ever except for everything else. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we will now shift our focus to the white house executive action on cyber security. here to talk to assist catherine lotrionte day. she is former counsel to the white house foreign intelligence advisory board. thank you for joining us this morning. i want to start out with a clip from president obama talking on friday at the cyber security summit. he outlined what the administration is proposing to do on cyber security. [video clip] >> we call for a single national standards of that within 30 days you know if your information has been stolen. this month, we are proposing legislation called the consumer bill of rights to give people some baseline protections. the right to know how companies are using your information. we have proposed the student digital privacy act, landmark autoland -- modeled on the landmark law from california. internet should be used to teach her students and not to collect data for marketing of students. we have taken new steps to strengthen our cyber security. proposing legislation to promote information sharing. and liability protections. today, i want to get calling on congress to come together and get this done. this week, we announced the creation of our new cyber threat intelligence integration system. just like what we do a terrorist threats, we will have a single entity that is analyzing and quickly sharing intelligence on cyber threats. so that we can act on those threats even faster. today, we are taking additional step. i'm signing a new exit of order to promote even more ever mason sharing of -- information sharing of cyber threats. it will encourage more companies to set up help us so that you can share information with each other. it will call for a common set of standards, including protections for private and civil liberties so that the government can share information with these house more easily. it will make it easier for companies to get classified cyber security threat information that they need to protect their companies. host: catherine lotrionte five or six big bullet points there. walk us through what this means for the average consumer. guest: the things that the president discussed at the summit, you can group them into a few categories. first, he made it clear that his view of these cyber security challenge is that there is a shared mission. it is not a one entity jobs. we need to leverage both the strength of what the private sector can do and what the government can do. there were times when the government cannot necessarily do all the security work but have to leave out to the company. key to that, to solving that problem, and ensuring that joint mission is the information sharing aspect. president obama, in his executive order, made it clear that what a lot of people have believed to be key in the success is that the private sector needs to be sharing amongst themselves. the information sharing and analysis organization that is now in the executive order would be the hou that the presidentb referred to. hopefully dhs, through the effective order, plays an essential role in making sure there is an appropriate hearing. the classified information, when needed is shared with the private sector. and making sure that the privacy and civil liberties of americans are protected. host: you mentioned two things i love you thoughts on. one was a consumer privacy bill of rights and the student privacy digital act. guest: on the consumer side, there have been a number of large publicized breaches. when those are damage, it is actually the consumer, our financial information has been compromised and loss. the president hopefully working jointly with congress, working to realize that what we need to do is protect the consumer. how do you do that? you can put more responsibility on the retailers. part of the executive order, and what the president is pushing for, is a data breach law which would actually require any company, that has suffered of breach when data has been lost, that they reported in a timely fashion. that does not mean six months. a means early notification to consumers. on the student information. as the president identified in his speech he does not want the information, our private information, to be used by others as a commercial entity. a commercial product. there ought to be certain protection. even of students data. i think it was a very time on the stanford campus when he made the speech, something that they talked about. host: you mention congress. i want to ask you this before we get to calls, if i'm ever correctly, the president has been trying for three years to get legislation on these data breaches through congress. is that looking any brighter this year? guest: if you recall a couple years ago, there was a proposed these of legislation. that was key to information sharing. the president has keeps up that focus -- kept out that focus. the hope is that we will get new legislation that will create liability protection for the private sector, but the same time the necessary protections for when the private will share with the government. in terms of other legislation, the data breach, the goal is to get one federal statute which actually incorporates, and consolidates, what we have. something like 56 different data breach local laws. they don't make sense. they're not always harmonize. there is hope that the legislation will go through. i think the biggest push is on the information sharing. hopefully the executive order sets the tone for congress in passing legislation. host: our guest is catherine lotrionte., she is at georgetown university, and also former counsel to the white house for the intelligence advisory board. we will go to calls. republicans, you can join us at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 745-8002. our first caller is larry from ohio. democrats line. caller: i would like to say that the cyber security stuff really makes the nervous. somehow, someway, you can have a toy in your hand that can control people's cars driving on the street. if they can do that, they can control everything. last i heard -- i don't like the idea that summit can do this stuff. control an airplane when the pilot is trying to do the best they can to avoid drones coming up them. somehow, someway, we have to find a way to protect our personal information. host: your thoughts. guest: what the caller identified was quite accurate in that we have technologies and innovation that control most of our lives. it can control anything from our refrigerator at home to remote vehicles. the reality is that we cannot reverse that trend. we can do is try to reach standards or benchmarks in which we can impose certain standards for security. to protect data, but also to ensure that any of the controls of products, including planes, function properly. it's also about physical safety. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate c-span. my question is about what i'm hearing reporting on the reluctance of other nations to share information data outside of their borders for fear that the u.s. government will have access to that information. and what impact that could have on international trade and commerce. guest: one of the key -- and this came up at the white house summit as well. one of the key means in which to combat some of the most dangerous, if you will, or troubling cyber threats is through international cooperation. at the summit there was one panel focused on international cooperative law enforcement efforts without cross-border cooperation and is through international cooperation. at the summit there was one panel focused sharing of able to tackle a global problem. key to that, though, is getting individual nation states and their information we will not be governments willing to provide assistance and sharing information to our law enforcement. and so we do that in a number of ways. through the mule tull legal assistant treaties. and last f.b.i. works, and secret service, cooperatively and jointly with other states. there are states less willing to cooperate. and that is a reality of international relations. so one can try to leverage, whether it's your economic and diplomatic means and pressures to actually get them. so there's this concept of other states being able and willing. how you help on the able side is you do capacity building and train them and educate them about the legal procedures and help them pass laws. but if they're unwill then it takes a little bit of encouragement through our diplomatic and economic pressures to get them to cooperate. because it's necessary to solve the threat. host: they're unwill wet weather down to west palm beach, florida. caller: probably cyber security warrents a whole -- they were more so [inaudible] united states cyber spying where we drew insecurities and nonconformties from the other countries by simply spying on them. insecurities and nonconformties from the other countries by simply spying on them. that induce the trade and the market failures which were -- we're going through today. guest: certainly the revelations of mr. snowden of nsa's surveillance programs and some witting and some unwitting cooperation with u.s. companies has caused great concern globally but also domestically. that is why the president has sauth to review the collection programs at nsa. there have been recommendations made for reform. and i do think there are some in the cyber security discussions on proposed legislation, particularly for information sharing. there are some that are -- that take a position that nsa reform must come first. but the majority of people are saying, is that we need there are some that are -- that take a position that nsa reform must come first. but the majority of people are saying, is that we need to do that at the same time while we reform nsa to make sure that there are rules about their receipt of information, their retention, their use. and certainly their sharing of west palm beach, florida. it, is in conformity with what not only congress but what the american public and particularly our allies are comfortable with. but i think you have to do both, the cyber security reform, and legislation as well as looking at nsa and whether there's room for reforms of their in conformity of doing the private sector to do what is the right thing which means protect your systems, share information when you've been breached, and try to minimize the damage. if there is a significant event that the government only can decide. the president will have to decide if it's of such significance that particularly than any private individual on the critical infrastructure so i mean, i will hear your comments and i will hang up and see what you've got to say about it. guest: i think there's a role and what was interesting with what was how president obama started the summit off is one of his very first points was that there is a division of labor. that there is a shared mission. and what he was talking about was that there's certain things that the government can do, biggest centralization ought to do, and has the legal authority to do. but there are other things that the private sector and individuals have the primary role in doing. so you wouldn't want the government to sit on all of your networks in order to secure them. particularly the american people would not want nsa, even if it gave us more security into our information. but there are times at the most extreme level where there is value for centralization of authority and action in the federal government, particularly in the executive branch. so when we were discussing responses to a cyber attack, you would not want to delegate that to independent individuals or companies. that's something that clearly the constitution sets out as a role for the individuals or companies. that's something that clearly the constitution sets out as a role for the government. and we have place. the computer fraud and abuse act laws in which is actually something that is within the president's review looking at how we can actually change that law to make sure that private companies can do what they need to do to defend themselves and not be criminally libel for insignificant responses to the attacker. but that law itself indicates how the american laws restrict the use or the -- certain action taken by the private entity. so i do believe that centralization for certain rainies particularly in the federal government shared between congress and the executive branch are very important to defend the national security. so that is at the higher end level of threlts. the lower issues certainly in the whole point of the summit was the private sector. the president is saying it's the private sector that has owned and operates this information. so it's individual companies with hubs of information sharing that really need to address the problem. and he says we're going to do it cooperatively with the government but it's not that the government solves all these problems. host: i want to summit was the private ask you about something, an article which has an interview with the president where he talks about this. they note that the silicon valley the white house's efforts to share data with government agencies is >> there's reason to be worried because these companies have sensitive private information. millions of americans and people -- what the concern is, and this was one of the key problems with this something, or what level the public is aware of in term of public private cooperation. >> mike we're going to have you leave it there. i want to make sure katherine has time to respond to your comments. >> i completely agree with you. in terms of the encryption issues and our ability to stay ahead of the curve. certainly we can't remain in a position where we're reacting to incidents and breaches. but the goal is that we get to a state where we can be predictive. that we can anticipate and that we have the tools. now, part of making sure that we have the tools to protect, defend, and then to respond is of course what you were pointing out. that we need to encourage host: that's all the time we have for this segment. announce my candidacy for president of the united states of america. >> a special presentation on presidential campaign announcements. from ronald reagan in 1979 to barack obama in 2007. and we will reair these announcements later in the evening at 9:00 p.m. on book tv. on c-span 2. finalists for the national book circle award starting at 2 eastern. david brian davis on his third and final volume on the history of slavery focusing on emancipation. at 1 deln 30 elizabeth col better argues that we are currently undergoing the sixth mass extings and will be the most devastating. and at 3:00 french economist with senator elizabeth warren talk about wealth and economic inequality on american history tv. cartoonist draws ten presidential caricatures as historian david mccullough discusses the presidents. a 1960 nbc interview with former president herbert hufere. and at 9:30 later in the our conversation with play wright james still and actor mary bacon about the ford's theater production of the widow lincoln to mark the 150th anniversary of president lincoln's assassination. "washington journal" continues. host: our conversation now will go to the debate over same sex marriage. and we're joined today from new york. susan is the constitutional national director. and here with me is brian brown the president of the national organization for marriage. thank you both for being with us this morning. guest: thank you. host: we're going to start with the -- with the news out of alabama where most judges have begun to issue licenses for same sex marriage but not across the entire state. and i want to start with you and ask how common is this? guest: it's not common for states to have the kind of circus rollout unfortunately that we saw in alabama where there was opposition coming from a judge of the state supreme court trying to block other judges from following what a federal judge has said, which is it's unconstitutional from to continue to withhold the right to marry for same sex couples in alabama. it shouldn't be that you need to lawyer up just to get a marriage license. but we're very pleased to see that as of just yesterday the great majority of judges in alabama who are those who issue marriage licenses were doing so. it was turning back to business as usual. so that same sex couples who just have been waiting so long to be able to get married and take care of each other and their families are not going to find shutrd windows when they go to the court to get their licenses. things are really turning up in alabama. host: i want to turn to you and also get to this question. is what's happening in alabama legal? guest: well, the original lawsuit named the attorney general as a defendant. the attorney general is an executive officer and doesn't have control of probait judges. instead that's a judicial function. so the original lawsuit that the federal judge ruled on didn't even have the right defendant. but more importantly we have a big problem here. we have the notion that one federal judge has the right to strip 81% of the voters of alabama or any state of their right to vote. that is a civil rights question and it is simply wrong to have this notion that somehow one judge's will gets to trump the decision of millions of voters. that is wrong and it's wrong to act as if the courts and judges in the recent opinion of jeffery sutton in the sixth circuit decision the supreme court is going to hear it's wrong to view judges as our enlightened dess pots. that's not the way the system is supposed to work. our system is supposed to work where the civil rights of all voters are respected. unfortunately, that is not happening with federal courts increasingly viewing their role as creating law rather than interpreting it. host: your thoughts on legalty here. guest: it's absolutely legal for judges to do what the constitution was created to do. we have a beautiful system in our country where while there are rights of states and rights of the federal government, there are also rights of the individual and we cherish those rights. those are built into our constitutional system. we protect people's rights to liberty and equality. we have constitutional amendments that the entire country agreed on. and it's the role of federal judges to protect the rights of the individuals to enforce those constitutional rights through on. and it's their court decisions and it's marriage. that ruling was went up to higher level courts and those courts were asked to stay the decision hold off on enforcing it and allowing couples to get married and both the circuit court and then the u.s. supreme court said no there's no justification for staying those decisions for making couples wait any longer in alabama to get married. this was a very orderly process in the courts and unfortunately it was another judge in the state of alabama judge moore on the state supreme court who gratuitously sent around a letter to state judges those who issue licenses saying don't follow the court ruling. you don't need to do that. but by the time the u.s. supreme court said no, we're not going to stay the ruling of the federal judge, what we saw was our system our constitution doing exactly what it was designed to do and exactly what the people of our country for centuries have said is the right system for us. guest: it's important to note that the supreme court did not actually issue any decision on the merits. she's pointing to the fact that there was a stay. we both know that's a very different issue whether the court grants or denies a stay from a decision on the merits. but i think the deeper question is this notion that somehow the constitution is whatever the judges say it's going to be and that this idea that the orderly administration of justice is creating out of thin air a notion that the 14th amendment created same sex marriage back in 186 is just no one knew at the time. that is absurd. the 14th amendment did not create same sex marriage. it did not redefine marriage. the country has always understood marriage as the union of a man and a woman. the attempts to state, for example, that the supreme court has ruled that there is a fundamental right to marry. well, yes, between a man and a woman. it was always understood as such. there's also the clear example of congress going back to the utah enabling act that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. and so what's being argued is essentially that our entire understanding of marriage throughout our nation's history is wrong. and that these judges now have the right to given their understanding of the living constitution, recreate what the constitution is. and all you need to do is to look at and say did anyone understand at the time that the 14th amendment created same sex marriage? did anyone believe that? of course it didn't. so this is not a about the orderly administration of justice. this is about turning our constitution on its head and creating out of thin air the right to redefine something that is by its nature something. marriage is by its definition the union of a man and a woman. and in the process of courts doing this what they're basically doing is stripping the civil rights of millions of voters who have stood up and said we know there's something true and good and beautiful about marriage as the union of a man and a woman. and we're going to have our right to vote on this. we're going to vote our conscience. and then to have a judge say no i think differently so i'm going to reinterpret the constitution. that is not the way the constitution is supposed to work. and it actually undermines a republican form of government to be so cavalier in dismissing and undermining the voters. host: i want to get back to the question of the supreme court in just a minute. but i would also like to bring in our callers. talking with brian brown and susan somer. if you would like to join our conversation the number to call if you support same sex marriage and oppose the numbers are on your screen. caller: i oppose it for a number of reasons. first and foremost it's opening up pandora's box. the young kids are going to be confused what is right and what is wrong. you're not going to tell me that they're like -- they're like sponges they absorb everything that they see. and if adults choose to make these decisions for themselves that's their business. but to put it in front of the public's eye and in front of their families i don't think they're considering the average marriage between a man and a woman. you can't reproduce. that's one thing that tells you that is wrong. your guests that are here had same sex marriage been a law during their time and their parents were that way they wouldn't be here. so that tells you that it's wrong. host: go ahead. guest: well, i think that the caller points to something very clear to anyone that just wants to look at the simple facts is that there is something very different about the union of a man and a woman. there's a reason why in our law and culture this union has been uplifted and that's because it's connected to procreation. that doesn't mean that every married couple is going to have children. but marriage serves two great functions. it brings the sexes together and connects them to any children they may bear. so to say that there's absolutely no difference between two men and two women and a man and a woman is wrong. i think the deeper question he points to is if your argument before the court is that this nebulous notion of, well, love makes a marriage. i love a man. i love a woman. i should be able to marry them even if i'm of the same sex. then why not three four or five people? are you denying their rights by saying that you don't have the right to marry more than one person? the reason that marriage is rooted in two is because there's something complementry and different between male and female. once you say that that distinction is wholly irrelevant, then you really don't have much of an argument to say why not three four or five. host: susan. guest: well, i would like to respond to what the caller said because it's definitely an issue that is on the minds of a number of people as they are thinking about and learning about this question. but we have to remember that there are hundreds of thousands of children being raised in the united states by same sex couples. you're right children really are at the center of this issue in many ways. but they're already children being reared in these families. and their parents are essentially having their arms tied behind their back by our government's refusal to allow those families to get married or to have their marriages recognized. those children are being harmed every day by being told there's something wrong with their family that makes their family unworthy of entering into marriage. and it brings all kinds of tangible hardships into those lives of those children. their parents are more strapped financially because they don't get the financial protections that come with marriage. there's more insecurity o when -- in a time of medical emergency and the parents have to prove who they are. one of the cases going up to the u.s. supreme court in the coming months involves families same sex couples who have had children in their marriage, in their relationships, and the state of ohio won't even give those children accurate birth certificates to allow their parents to demonstrate at critical times who this family really is. those children are being hurt. so if we really care about children let's not forget all the children being raised by same sex couples and also other children who they are adopting, children who would otherwise go without loving families and homes. those children too deserve the same dignity and the same respect for their families and the same rights. and also to respond to something mr. brown was saying about what are constitution and people's oolttudes were like in 868 and that we should somehow be locked forever in what the sensibilities of people in 1868 might have been. if that were the case, we would folt have interracial marriage be it legal throughout the land. it took 100 years for that to be become the law based on the supreme court ruling in 1967. in 1868, that wasn't what many americans thought the constitution required. also, we would still be locked in a time when marriage was an institution that treated women legally as subordinate to their husbands, stripped them of legal rights as independent beings. well, that's -- that too has changed over the years. and i think for the better. we would all agree. we should not be locked in what popular opinion might have been in 1868. and speaking of popular opinion, right now a majority of americans actually support the freedom to marry for same sex couples. this is not just an issue where the courts are the ones who are leading the way. it's really something that people, as there have been conversations about this subject and as they have seen families and what it means to the children of those families that are led by same sex couples are really coming around and seeing that nobody is harmed, nobody else's children are harmed, no other marriages are harmed by letting same sex couples simply have the freedom to protect each other and their children. host: i want to make sure you get a chance to respond. guest: people very clearly are harmed. the voters who stood up and made their views clear are harmed when breaches and arguments are put forward that somehow claim that it's simply the voters who animus to understand this basic human truth that men and women are different and that marriage is something unique and special. people are really harmed when catholic clarets adoption agency in massachusetts is shut down because the state says now that we have same sex marriage it's discrimination for your religious adoption agency not to place children with same sex couples. children are harmed when that happens. that's happened throughout the country, in illinois in washington, d.c., where once marriage is redefined, organizations are targeted and in effect shut down. people are harmed when bakers, wedding photographers, others who understand the truth about marriage are fined because they cannot take part in the same sex marriage ceremony. people are harmed when their churches are told that a hall must be opened for same sex unions in their church. people are really harmed when their children are told in the schools that their parents are bigots or hateful simply for standing up for this core truth that marriage is the union of a man and woman. people are very much harmed. and if you say of course things were very wrong and there were many huge problems in our country. but many of those problems were not solved by the united states supreme court. they were created by them. bread scott plessy v ferguson. there were many times where our supreme court and federal courts got fundamental questions wrong. the notion that somehow the courts always get these things right and that they're a means of short sirkting the democratic process, that is wrong. most importantly when the court has done this if we just look at the wake of the row v. wade decision when the court creates out of thin air a right to abortion, did that solve the question for the united states? of course it didn't. we've become more polar ayed. what you do when you short circuit the democratic process and attempt to claim that good hearted folks across this country who stood up for the truth about marriage are somehow bigotted or full of animus because of doing that, what you do is you further pole rise and divide our country and you put into law a lie. and regardless of how the supreme court engs up ruling in june, it is a myth that somehow supporters of the truth about marriage are somehow going to go away. they will work, they will fight harder, we will work for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. so the notion that the supreme court has the ability to somehow solve this problem, that whole idea undermines republican form of government. it is not up to the united states supreme court to get in the business of making law. it should simply interpreting the law. and very clearly it will be making the law and going against existing precedent to say that there's somehow a constitutional right to redefine marriage. host: let's go back to the phones. caller: good morning. i could not disagree with mr. brown more on this than anything. the vagaries he's using are incredible. and it's absolutely absurd. we have freedom of religion in this country. we have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. and the fact is that loving couples live longer and happier lives. yes, a man and a woman make a baby. but they do not make happiness necessarily. if you don't want to marry a man mr. brown don't marry a man. but somebody else has a right to. they have a right to have happiness in their life and a woman who likes another woman has a right to happiness and life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. it's in the constitution. this church and state thing is a very thin line and the line is -- has been crossed many times when the state goes into a marriage and says we the state now control the children of this marriage and or we control this part of the marriage. so the state stuck its finger into the marriage thing a long time ago so you can't just say it was 1846 or whenever. it's been a long time coming. the fact is people have a right to be happy. and they should be happy with who they want to be happy with. and it does not harm anyone else. no one else is harmed when two people love each other. guest: well, this is not about whether people can be happy or love each other. this is about what is marriage. what i referred back to court decisions i was simply saying that the idea that the 14th amendment created same sex marriage is patently absurd. of course that's not the case. no one viewed that as the case at any point until very recent history. this is a very new argument. now it actually goes much further back than 1868. it was always a part of our common law all the way through the revolution all the way to the present. but even further back. marriage as the union of a man and a woman is one of those few nearly universal human goods. cultures that are very different than our own, states that are very different than our own across huge expanses of time and place have all understood that there's something unique and special about the union of a man and a woman. and i think when you say there is no harm again i already pointed to a number of examples of very clear harm. the harm more importantly is to children. the reality is that children do do best with both their mother and their father. and you can understand the extent of the change that we're being asked to accept when you hear this argument that somehow ohio should list two men on the birth certificate. a child has both a mother and a father. this is a biological reality. and what we're being asked to do is to remake what it means to be a human being in this quest for the redefinition of marriage. and you cannot say that we're going to put this lie into the law and then say well, there will be no effect. again, the effects are already happening all across the country. we're seeing religious liberty seriously undermined and when i say religious liberty i don't mean the idea that people of different faiths that understand that marriage is the union of a man and a woman have the right to gather in their synagogue or their church and talk about their views on marriage and that that is what religious liberty is. of course not. it extends into the public square. it means that people should be able to live their lives without being punished or marginalized or attacked. people shouldn't be fired for giving money to proposition 8 as we recently saw. the fire chief of atlanta shouldn't be fired because he pub lirs a book with his views on homosexuality. this is happening across the country. and so when you talk about the declaration of independence, you talk about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. what we're seeing is that those of us who understand the truth about marriage are increasingly being punished and marge lalized by our own government for standing up for this truth. and that is wrong. and overwhelming numbers of americans understand that that's wrong. on a final point. the notion that somehow public opinion has radically shifted on this issue is gench wrong. and let me disgust -- again wrong. why are proponents of same sex marriage completely abandoning referenda or ballot initiative efforts and only going through the courts? if they truly believe that the people were on their side they wouldn't have abandoned the democratic process. guest: mr. brown has just put out a lot of stuff there. and a lot of it is absolutely inaccurate. first of all, the idea that children don't do well with same sex parents has been debunked time and again by all the leading organizations, the experts, the professional groups that this know about this and that have done studies for decades now. the american psychological association, the mesh academy of pediatrics, the national association of social workers, the american medical association all believe that children do very well with a loving set of same sex parents. they fair just as well as other people's children. and the way they're being harmed is when the state strips their parents of the same basic legal protections and rights and security and stability for their families that others can count on through marriage. if you really cared about the children in this country, we would support the marriages of same-sex couples and open the door to the enormous protections that come to families. there is absolutely no credible evidence that children reared in same-sex households don't do just as well -- a judge in michigan, a gentleman in his 80's who was a reagan appointee who has spent decades on the bench and knows how to evaluate evidence and knows his way around the courtroom heard evidence and mr. brown's side had every opportunity to put in something -- it is somehow important to fence same-sex marriages for the sake of children. there is just nothing to it. the idea that somehow you are going to be termed a big it if you don't support the rights of same-sex couples to marry is simply not what this movement is about. the first time we heard today the word "big it" was from mr. brown. -- "bigot" was from his to wrap it we are seen nation in attitudes and opinions. not everybody is going to agree. -- was from mr. brown. we are seeing a shift in attitudes and opinions. yes, there are many gay americans in our neighborhoods working with us, maybe parts of our family. getting to know them and understanding how much we heard them when we do not give them the same dignity and support and access to marriage. mr. brown also cited cases from 100 years ago when the court denied equality of african-americans at that time. and pointed to those somehow as why the court should deny the quality of lesbian and gay americans today. we are on a steady arc toward justice in our country. their marriage flickers off or if they live in the wrong state they can't get married. these cases going before the court really illustrate why it's incredibly important not just an abstract terms but in real life terms for these families. the case -- who with his longtime partner who was dying of lou gehrig's disease, family chipped in and were able to fly them to maryland, a state where they could get married. they got married on the tarmac. they had to lawyer up when they got home. just so jim could appear on the death certificate -- he succumbed to lou gehrig's disease and they had to fight just for the death certificate to reflect that they were a married couple. this meant the world to them. nobody could question the love and commitment of this pair. he nursed his beloved spouse through the end of a terrible illness. the idea that it just isn't right to say no, they don't have a love and marriage, it's hurtful to real-life families. mr. brown also talked about how it could somehow hurt other people. people with religious beliefs that don't condone having same-sex couples get married. everybody is entitled to their own beliefs. nobody is telling churches religious organizations what they need to do crew can get married. -- or who can get married. in the public square when you are in a business that serves the public, simply doing so in an evenhanded way. who is getting hurt when same-sex couples can't get married? those adults and their children are the ones who suffer. they badly need the right to marry. guest:host: i wanted to bring on the screen some of the statistics we've been talking about. some data from the pew research center. -- the 39% oppose same-sex marriage. they look at that my generation and break it down from age group -- by age group. we will go back to the phones now. also, oklahoma. benson is on the line and he opposes same-sex marriage. caller: i have a gay uncle that turned me against it. that's all i have to say. guest: let me go back to the statistics you just put forward. anyone familiar with the history of voting on the issue of same-sex marriage should be aware that, in almost all of the public votes, pulling drastically understated support for traditional marriage. there was no associated press poll which is a strikingly different poll than the one you put up which only showed the support for same-sex marriage at 4% -- 44%. the poll that counts is when voters are able to be in the ballot box and make the decision. the supporters of redefining marriage have said we don't want to do this anymore. we will take it to the judges. finally, the notion that a judge in a court has the ability to decide what the social science research says on parenting again underlines the idea that proponents of same-sex marriage seem to think that judges get to decide all of our key questions. there was a recent study released that affirms the truth that americans know in their heart that there is something unique about having a mother and father. there is something good about having a mother and father, a biological connection. that is the gold standard. social science has tended to underscore that truth. we don't have a ton of data on same-sex parenting. the gold standard for children is to have both their mother and father in their home, with them, caring for them. you can say a judge said this or did not allow this. judges don't get to decide these things. we make arguments. we reason toward conclusions. we don't suddenly make an argument from authority saying this judge said this or this association claimed this. there is an excellent book on the question of what is marriage. by professor robert george, ryan anderson. it lays out the key troops -- truths. it is the union of one man and one woman. host: back to susan sommer. guest: it is not just one judge that has evaluated the constitutional principles involved in seeing the real-life impact of denying freedom to marry. just in the last two years, we have seen around 60 courts around the country ruled the same way, the overwhelming majority of courts looking hard at this question and have real-life families in front of them are all ruling in the same direction. i don't think we want to live in america where we don't have courts that are there to protect the minority when the majority votes at the ballot box to restrict them up very important rights. the individuals are the ones who have to live every day the hardships of being denied these basic freedoms. many other people, while they may have strong opinions about it, often aren't getting it -- giving it that much thought. it is understandable that they would not be focused on figuring out, getting to the bottom of what is right here for these families. that is partly why we have the constitutional system that our founders saw fit to leave as our legacy and that works incredibly beautifully over time. it is the place where we can turn individuals who belong to minority groups, when we are not having our rights enforced through the voting booth by a majority of people who don't even know us. there truly is no credible, reputable evidence coming from any one with any kind of scientific professional expertise in the subject suggesting that the children of same-sex parents don't fare every bit as well as the children of other families. these children exist. they go to school with our children. they are being raced down the block. why would we want to only add hardship in their lives by denying their parents the same rights and stability and ability to protect those kids? why give them extra financial hurdles? why tell those children that their families are not good enough to be part of marriage? why tell their children that their parents are somehow less than other parents? that is not who we are as a people. that is not the message we want to send to any of these children. host: our guests are brian brown and susan sommer. lots of calls coming in. we go to blend oh, maryland. tonya supports same-sex marriage. caller: good morning, america. i am sorry, mr. brown. i cannot agree with anything you are saying. i don't see why you would perpetrate the myth that the only people who should be able to get married are people that can procreate. i am no longer able to have children, so should i not be able to get married? my daughter is a lesbian. it doesn't mean that she does not love someone else and should not be able to be in that bond with that person for the rest of her life. i support same-sex marriage because i believe that it has nothing to do with the courts. it has nothing to do with the bible. it is all about love, how you feel about someone. and how you are going to cherish that person for the rest of your life. for anyone to say that same-sex marriage is bad because it is in the bible -- if you are talking about the bible, you must be talking about sharia law. it states we can't follow the laws of another country. the bible was not written in the united states of america. it was written in jerusalem and israel and egypt. if that is the way we are going to face how we treat other people, let's go by the laws of that country in general. but same-sex marriage has nothing to do with anyone else. my marriage will not be affected by anyone else possible marriage. i cannot influence your marriage and you cannot influence mind. i don't see why it be such a problem. as long as these two people love each other and are respectful to one another and are taking care of one another, it should not matter to anybody else. guest: none of the arguments i have put forward at any point in this discussion have i refer to the vital. -- bible. i believe the netherlands right to stand up and speak from their conscience. i think we can reason towards the truth that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. the arguments you are putting forward that somehow this is only about love and marriage is basically a private affair, you are saying what i do my daughter does has no effect on you. marriage is a profoundly public good. it is not a private decision. when you change the definition it has profound implications for everyone. think about the reality we now have religious organizations told that they can't place need to children for adoption simply because they can't place children with same-sex couples. that is a direct threat to religious liberty. folks being fired, the fire captain in atlanta i brought up earlier. it is not true that there are no effects, ramifications from the redefinition of marriage. the dismissive attitude we are hearing from shannon about people being uneducated or not knowing, not having gay neighbors is just that, quite dismissive. people support the truth about marriage because they know it in their hearts. it is not based on animus or hatred. it is based on the reality that people know there is something -- november is some distinction -- knowing there is some distinction in male and female. that is a biological reality. to make these claims that just dismisses is wrong. if you accept the claims that what marriage is is simply based on my personal feelings of love or desire and i should be affirmed in those desires or feelings, again, there has not been an argument put back as to why we would not further undermine the definition of marriage by saying why not 3, 4 or five? say i love to folks or three people of the same sex. why should i not be allowed to marry them? there is not a real response to that because once you get away from the core truth about the fundamental reality that marriage is based upon our nature as human beings, once you push that aside, i have not heard a really -- an argument to say why all the claims being made by shannon not equally be applied to those who want polyamide -- polygamy. guest: my name is susan. the caller from maryland raised a really beautiful and important point. allowing same-sex couples to get married harms no one else possible marriage is. -- no one else possible's marriages. my marriage remains intact. her marriage remains intact. all we are doing is allowing more people to get married. there is no finite set of marriage licenses that we have in this country. this is not some zero-sum game. it is an incredibly important, valuable status could be married. it brings all kinds of protections to the family. it is a private commitment to my private statement of love in a public statement of the commitment that two people make to each other and to any children they might have. we don't hurt anyone else's marriages by recognizing the power and love that same-sex couples feel for each other and their children. that the parents, like the caller from maryland, feel when their own children are lesbian or gay and are fortunate enough to find someone who loves them and with whom they can spend their lives. there is no threat here in this country to allowing same-sex couples to marry. we don't redefine the institution. we enrich it. we bring more families into it and we give more people to protections and benefits that come from it. we don't call anyone else by bad names because they don't agree. what is really important is to make sure that everybody gets the same baseline rights that are guaranteed by our constitution that in dallas all with dignity and liberty and the right to equality. and give access to our children, to our families to protections -- to be at some of his bedside when they are sick in the hospital. the ability to take care of our children by having financial security for them. when we have to produce a birth certificate to identify who these parents are, we can do that. by not having these families -- robbing these families of the cradle-to-grave protections. we only strengthen our communities and families and our country by recognizing there is nothing different about these couples that should fence them out of this institution of marriage. we don't cut back on who else can get married. we have now had marriage in this country, starting in massachusetts for over a decade. we have not seen any kind of harm or chaos we have not. we see families going about their daily lives. my organization works with individuals who tell me over and over again, we are really boring. all they are doing is getting up in the morning, helping their kids to pack their lunches and get off to school, going into their jobs, they are not try to interfere with anyone else's lives or works. they are no different. in all the important ways that make marriage institution that we cherish, they belong. they are fortunate enough to have found somebody to put up with them and love them. we don't hurt anybody else by recognizing the common humanity. guest: susan is claiming that somehow the word "discrimination" or bigotry is not part of this argument when come if you look at the briefs that have been filed and the arguments made, precisely this question is at stake and what is before the court. our voters acting out of discrimination when they stand up and vote to amend their state constitutions to protect marriage? that is precisely what is at stake. to act as if all of the real instances of people being punished and marginalized, the real instances of religious organizations of being undermined in their ability to stand up for the truth as they see it, to act as if those don't exist and it's ok to have teachers in massachusetts telling children that their parents are the functional equivalent of racists because they are raising them to understand that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, that is just wrong. you cannot make this case by building a false analogy to opposition to interracial marriage and attempt to say that supporters of marriage are just like folks who opposed interracial marriage. and then, on the other hand, say , we are not saying you are bigots. these analogies have come up time and time again. laws against interracial marriage struck at the heart of marriage. they attempted to bring race into marriage, which should have never been there. laws against interracial marriage were about keeping the race is a part. the beauty of marriage is that it is about bringing the sexes together to compare the two is false. you can't say that somehow you are not saying that people are discriminatory or hateful when you make an analogy, a false analogy to say that supporters of traditional marriage are in the same position as those who oppose interracial marriage. that is is learning is the millions of americans who stood up for the truth of marriage. host: we want to get back to this issue. i want to play a clip from an interview that the supreme court associate justice ruth bader ginsburg gave. she was asked whether or not she was concerned about the country accepting same-sex marriage. [video clip] >> i think it is doubtful -- the change in people's attitudes on that issue has been enormous. in recent years, people have said "this is the way i am." others looked around and we discovered it's our next-door neighbor. or it's our child's best friend. or even our child. as more and more people came out and said "this is who i am," the rest of us recognized that they are one of us. there was a familiarity with these people that did not exist in the beginning when the race problem was on the front burner. because we lived in segregated communities and it was truly a we they kind of thing. the gay-rights movement -- it would not take a large adjustment. host: that was rude get a pittsburgh talking about potential acceptance of same-sex marriage by the electorate. -- ruth bader ginsburg. guest: it goes against a sick judicial ethics to be out there talking about a case that is currently before her. she has said in the past that she would not comment on issues that may be coming up before the supreme court. when the issue is same-sex marriage, the justice feels like it is absolutely fine to go against the long-standing principle that judges should not be commenting on a case coming up before them. this underlines the reality that on the issue of same-sex marriage, there is a bright -- divide where many a leads and folks within d.c. have embraced redefining marriage and there is a tendency to dismiss the commonsense views that most americans still hold on to. we should not have justices commenting on issues that are about to come before the court. many judges now feel as if they can simply do whatever they wish to do, regardless of what basic judicial ethics and common sense says. host: susan sommer? guest: when justice ginsburg said at those wise words justice scalia was sharing the podium with her, giving his counterpoint ideas. there are judges on both sides of the spectrum who are airing what their perceptions of the country might be not necessarily anything to do with their legal conclusions. what part of the wisdom of justice ginsburg is she is pointing out that there has been a gradual and now accelerating shift in how people understand this issue. as they get to know the gay and lesbian americans in their midst who had been unable to reveal who they were because of this terrible history of discrimination that has been suffered by this community. the inability of gay and lesbian people to be out in the their lives authentically as who they are. mr. brown is talking about harms to other people that will be discriminated against if same-sex couples get to marry. we forget who have really been bearing the brunt of historic discrimination. it is absolutely the gay men and lesbians and their families who are the ones who have lost their jobs, who have been denied parental rights, who have been kicked out of restaurants and other places just for being themselves. we are seeing a real curve towards justice in this country. as people get to know and feel less threatened by their neighbors, their children, their children's friends. we are seeing a growing understanding about what it really means to give equal access to the right to marry the freedom to marry for these families. it is not hurting other people. it's a terrible exaggeration going on when we should be remembering who really has suffered from the misunderstood -- being misunderstood and not being able to reveal who they are. from not being able to live as families with the one person they love. this is valentine's day today. we should remember what it means for many couples around the country to be able to know that they are fortunate enough to have found somebody they love somebody they can build a life with. we should be affirming these wonderful principles of love and equality through access to marriage and institutions that nurture and support it. we do not hurt anyone else's marriages or families by recognizing how important it is for people who have suffered centuries of denial of basic rights, finally able in this country, thanks to growing understanding, to stand up and say this is the person i love, i want to be with them through sickness and in health. i will be with them no matter what. allow us to take care of each other the best we can, through all the protections that come with marriage. the civil right and financial protections. host: we want to squeeze in one last call. bill in florida. he opposes same-sex marriage. caller: thank you. thank you very much for taking my call. i am definitely against same-sex marriages. homosexuals are not born. homosexuals are made. they are made when they are a little boy or a little girl violated by another boy or girl. i have seen these and other families who have talked about it. homosexuals -- it goes against religion. i believe rome itself, the great government of rome was destroyed because of homosexuality. destroyed an entire government. that is one point. other things i want to say -- it is plain as the nose on your face. children are subject to other homosexuals and are caused to be homosexuals. now that a man or woman -- they are not born homosexuals. you will notice that the two females who want to marry each other and live together as homosexuals, they never adopt a male baby. they always adopt a female baby. host: i will give our guests the last word. susan sommer, i start with you. guest: there has been research done -- there is no evidence that being lesbian or gay is a choice that people take on. we should not be penalizing people because they love someone of the same-sex and want to build families together. this is not something people do lightly. there are people raising children, men raising boys or girls, women raising boys or girls, there is nothing to the idea that there is some kind of sticking to one gender when you adopt. that is not what we are seeing. these couples are doing the best they can under difficult circumstances with the government tying their hands behind their backs, trying to care for each other. or like couples in new york, ohio, all across the country are doing to raise children together and give them the best homes they can. those kids deserve the same kind of dignity that other families have. they deserve not to be told that there is something wrong with their families because they are being raised by couples who have found each other and are diving together into life as a unit and try to help each other through life. guest: all people deserve respect and dignity. that is obvious and all americans can agree on that. the disagreement here is whether there is a civil right to redefine the nature of what marriage is. there is not. folks who have listened to this debate and have heard some of the claims that there is no evidence that children do best with both a mom and dad, they are sitting at home saying that is not true. there are good studies that folks can look at. as this comes before the supreme court, supporters of the truth about marriage do not get discouraged, do not get beaten down by the constant media repetition of the talking points of supporters of same-sex marriage. we will be doing a march for marriage on april 25 at the capital at 11:00. we encourage everyone who supports the truth about marriage to be there. we will be gathering in love and respect for everyone, but also standing for this truth. we are not going to accept the notion that somehow you get second-class status in this country simply because you know the truth about marriage. i encourage folks to join us. host: we will have to leave it there. brian brown is the president of the national organization for marriage. joining us from new york, susan sommer is the constitution litigation national director. thank you both for joining us this morning. we will take a quick break. we will open up the phone lines for your thoughts on the headlines making these today. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> here's some of our future programs or this presidents' day weekend. today at 9:00, live coverage of the savanna book festival with nonfiction authors -- sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern former seamer -- senior adviser for president obama, david axelrod. today beginning at 8:30, the 100th anniversary of the release of the film "the birth of a nation." the showing of the entire 1915 film followed by a live call-in program with civil war historian harry jones and the author. sunday at 8:00, george washington portraits, focusing on how artists captured the spirit of the first president. find our complete television schedule at www.c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs who are watching. you can e-mail us at comments@c span.org. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. the political landscape has changed with 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 50 democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one a democrat in the senate , there's 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house and the first woman veteran in the senate. his congressional chronicle on c-span.org. lots of useful information including voting results and statistics about each session of congress. new congress, best access on www.c-span.org. >> " washington journal" continues. host: we have opened up the phone lines. we would like to hear from you about the stories on your mind in today's headlines. republicans can call 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. we go to alabama where phyllis is on the line. she is a republican. you are on "washington journal." what's on your mind? caller: i was trying to call in about the issue that was on the table just before the about the same-sex unions. host: what are you thinking? caller: i'm thinking i support mr. brown. marriage is between a man and woman, period. judge ginsburg should excuse herself from the case when the supreme court makes their decision. i am a black woman from alabama. we are having this issue presented to us now. they tried to make this a civil rights issue. they tried to say it's the same as what happened with black people. it is not. i'm just asking now that judge ginsburg recuse herself from this case when it is being decided by the supreme court. host: let's take a glance at front pages from across the country and see what is making news there. the boston globe's front page, a story about bush prepping to lock in robbie donors. jeb bush has been locking in one of the most sought-after -- lock in romney donors. -- the early 2016 money race. melvin on the democrats line. south carolina. caller: i just want to comment -- the lady talking about the bible as a universal law. no matter where you are, the law applies. when it comes to same-sex marriages, i'm coming from a political point of view. that supersedes the constitution. -- biblical point of view. if a man wants to marry a man that is their choice. if you put the laws on the books, they will do the same thing. therefore, we don't choose how people live their lives. they have a right to choose what sex they want. if a man wants to go to hell that's their business. i'm through. host: this week's republican address, urging the president to approve the keystone pipeline. touting the good the pipeline has done. [video clip] >> see him here in oklahoma, we have part of this pipeline that has already been approved. from cushing, oklahoma south into texas. this one portion of the pipeline is on track to generate over $15 million annually in tax revenue for oklahoma. that is a big boost for our state with 85% of that money going to public schools. if the whole project is approved that value would increase by 75%. that is a steady, reliable source of revenue coming in for the foreseeable future. the construction of this pipeline has helped fuel our state's economic comeback. these are small towns populations of no more than a few thousand people or so having about a thousand workers based out of these camps was a great source of economic developing for these communities. about 4000 workers were part of a construction -- that is some 12 million man hours of labor. the pipeline continues to bring jobs and opportunities into oklahoma. since 2010 oklahoma has seen a 44% jump in pipeline transportation and construction jobs. this is all from one part of one pipeline in one state. just think what we can achieve if this whole project were allowed to go forward. host: that was the oklahoma governor urging the president to approve the keystone pipeline. congress passed that legislation recently. president obama has said that he would veto the legislation. ron is on the line for republicans in oklahoma. caller: i had several points on the last segment. based on reading two books, one is the naked truth and the other is the naked communist. that is one of the goals of communism, to help destroy the marriage bonds between a man and woman. going back to the supreme court back to the so-called separation of church and state, one of the justices at that time made the comment that if you tell a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it. that is a lot of what's been happening within our society for quite some time. even our law school people are being taught the lie about the wall of separation of church and state being in the constitution. when people have pointed out to them that it does not exist there they are shocked because that is what they were taught in their school. i'm not real certain that our justices are really being taught the truth about our constitution. that is part of our problem with some of the justices saying in making the rulings they are within our government. thank you. host: fort lauderdale, florida. frank on the line for independents. caller: i wanted to refer to something on your last two guests. the thing i wanted to talk about was related to the topic but also a bit different from what they were talking about. there was recently a professor at marquette university in wisconsin, john mcadams who was separated from his job because he took a stand that she was in the political science department and there was a philosophy student who wanted to speak out against gay marriage. mcadams apparently supported her right to say it. he was fired from his job. he was separated from his job in some way. if the professors -- i don't take that strong a stand about gay marriage and all. if the professors -- they are curtailing his free-speech. if they are against free speech why don't they say so? i'm for free speech. i don't know if i agree with what mcadams did. i met him one time at a conference. it had to do with the kennedy assassination. he runs a blog online. he thinks oswald was the lone assassin. i would have to support his right. thank you very much. host: a look at another front page. this one from "the denver post." the governor of oregon resigning yesterday. chesapeake, virginia. arthur on the democrats line. caller: i would like to make a comment on the same-sex marriage thing -- i disagree with it, i oppose it. i don't think same-sex marriage should be a civil right. i think it's an abomination. i think it's a form of genocide toward the human race. two people of the same-sex cannot reproduce. they're committing genocide toward the human race. i think it should not be. when they speak of same-sex children -- they don't have any children. they cannot reproduce. they are trying to confiscate someone else's children to assassinate them. god destroyed sodom and gomorrah because of sexuality. -- homosexuality. that's all i have to say. host: we are taking your calls on the news stories on your mind this morning. mary in louisiana calling in on airline for republicans. -- our line for republicans. caller: if you practice what they have in the holy bible under leviticus come it's as if you practice oral or in all sex, you are committing crimes against god and nature. used to be put to death if he practiced anything like that. they are going to have to bring back the sodomy law and practice the sodomy law. if they start doing things like this, they will be doing hate crimes against god and nature. host: president obama spoke about education. [video clip] >> this year, i want to work with both parties in congress to replace no child that behind with a smarter law that addresses the overuse of standardized tests, makes a real investment in preschool and gives every kid a fair shot in the new economy. that is pretty common sense that education bill should improve education. as we speak, there is a republican bill in congress that would do the opposite. at a time when we should invest more in our kids, their plan would lock in cuts to schools for the rest of this death gate -- decade. we would invest less in our kids in 2021 than we did in 2012. at a time when we should give our teachers all the resources they need. their plan could that states and cities shuffle education dollars into sports stadiums. at a time when we should give every kid ever wear a fair shot this congress would allow states to make even deeper cuts in the school districts that need the most support, send even more money to the wealthiest school districts in america and turn back the clock to a time when too many students were left behind and failing in schools. the nine quality education to the children of working families is as wrong as tonight health care -- denying health care to working families. host: this week's presidential address. ron is on the line -- independent line in kentucky. what news story is on your mind this week? caller: i see you been having this gay sex -- gay marriage question. host: what is your take on it? caller: the gentleman that is against gay marriage seems to bring up the church quite a bit should look at the headlines and see the abuse the catholic church has been accused of when it comes to child molestation and child endangerment. they hide behind it and he is using those words to point at the people that want to take care of children. it is unfortunate in this world that we do not have a country that takes care of itself and adopts its own children. most people in this country are adopting children from outside the country. they claim to be religious. i believe there is a passage that says charity begins at home. the other question of popular media saying that measles comes from disneyland. measles comes from open borders allowing millions of on inoculated people to come into our country. when i went to germany with my parents, i got every shot in the world so i would not bring anything back. our government does not protect our health and we will spend billions if not trillions wiping out diseases we already did. thank you very much. host: joe is here in washington on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment on the same-sex marriage. host: looks like we have lost joe. kansas city, kansas. connie is a democrat. caller: good morning. happy valentine's day, everybody. i wanted to make a comment on the same-sex marriage situation. i have an adult son who is gay. we have had lots of conversations over the years about how this occurred in him. he knew when he was in third grade that something was wrong with him. he went through a lot of stress during those years and i had no idea the cause of what was going on. with all of these signs -- progress in science we are making with the brain these days -- when a person reaches puberty age and their brain is wired to be attracted to the opposite sex , it is at that point when these people are realizing they are not attracted to the opposite sex but the same-sex. this happens when children -- when people hit purity. their brain is wired differently. i'm christian and i believe truly that god created my son just the way he has. my son has special talents and abilities that maybe some other people don't and they have a special place in this world and god loves them. i am asking america, happy valentine's day, to embrace love and read the scientific research coming out on brain chemistry and the way the brain is wired. particularly when this is starting to come out -- one of the reasons it is so important we have this education going on in middle schools and high schools. there are kids out there realizing something is wrong with them. that's all i have to say. happy valentine's day, everybody. caller: tomorrow night is the deadline for sign-ups under the affordable care act. the obama administration is undergoing a push, the story of today's wall street journal. the obama administration appeared on track to reach's overall goal -- its overall goal. -- sandra is on the independent line in minnesota. caller: good morning. i wanted to correct an earlier caller that said life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the constitution. it is not in the constitution, it's in the declaration of independence. thank you. host: we move along to helena in fort lauderdale, florida. republicans line. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment on the gay marriage topic. i'm really concerned because i have little kids, what their future is going to be like when they turn on the tv 15 years from now and it's an acceptable practice where you were seeing this on tv. it gay marriage is ok, bearing another man or another woman why is it not ok for a man to marry more than one woman? the world is going to go crazy. marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman to create life. you cannot have children with a man and man only or woman and woman only. you still need an egg and a sperm. i pray that our world, our country stays on the same road that god wants us on. if you don't believe in god that's fine. don't make the choices for the majority of the citizens that live in this country. thank you very much. host: last call from florida lexi on the independents line caller: thanks for freedom of speech. i have absolutely no product that problem with the gay or lesbian individuals as a community. they're making an argument -- stop making the argument that it does not hurt families, because it does. there is a lot of talk about love and that is why they choose to marry another man or woman. when by virtue of the reality of their actions, they are demonstrating hate. you can't have children. that is the most venomous argument made against children. you can't procreate. host: that is unfortunately all the time we have today. be sure to join us tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. we will be joined by the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine and jim webb, the former u.s. senator from virginia. we will be joined by newt gingrich, the former speaker of the house and a 2012 presidential candidate. thank you so much for joining us to be sure to join us tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. and have a great valentine's day. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] ♪ ♪ >> here's a look at what's coming up today on c-span. next, and education for posted by tim scott. then, a hearing on vaccine preventable disease. later, a debate on the keystone xl pipeline. we will show you today on the measure before the final blow occurred.

Related Keywords

Jerusalem , Israel General , Israel , Louisiana , United States , Alabama , Minnesota , North Charleston , South Carolina , California , Russia , Kansas City , Kansas , Washington , District Of Columbia , Ukraine , Netherlands , Rome , Lazio , Italy , Egypt , Massachusetts , Georgetown University , Stanford , New York , Germany , Texas , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Kentucky , Florida , Boston , Illinois , Virginia , Wisconsin , Oregon , Michigan , Denver , Colorado , Oklahoma , Fort Lauderdale , Iraq , Tennessee , New Jersey , Maryland , Peru , Marquette University , Ohio , Orlando , Dallas , Englewood , France , Utah , Americans , Russian , French , Peruvian , American , Walter Cronkite , John Stuart , Frank Newport , Trayvon Martin , Elizabeth Warren , Ryan Anderson , Ben Sherwood , Al Sharpton , Ronald Reagan , Jim Webb , America Brian Williams , George Bush , Bob Simon , Scott Plessy V Ferguson , Doris Gibson , David Axelrod , Robert George , David Carr , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , John Kitzhaber Ritchie , Jeffery Sutton , Jon Stewart , Lou Gehrig , Sylvia Hayes , Cheryl Atkinson , Brian Brown , Ben Schapiro , Newt Gingrich , Walker Cronkite , Alec Baldwin , Jay Leno , David Mccullough , Tim Scott , James Rosen , Barbara Bush , Elizabeth Sherwood Randall , Brian Rosen , Jeb Bush , Ryan Williams , Bertie Goldman , Anthony Foxx , John Mcadams , Susan Somer , Harry Jones , Susan Sommer , Bob Woodward , Brian Williams , Barack Obama , Bob Dell , Wright James , John Stewart , Hillary Clinton , David Brian Davis ,