All right, great, thank you. So my name is Shlomi Raaz. I'm the founder of Elucis. So clinical trials have revealed that psychedelics are antidepressant. And Johns Hopkins has recently initiated a trial into the use of psilocybin for treatment of depression specifically associated with Alzheimer's disease. I mention that because the therapeutic potential of psychedelics extends far beyond psychiatry. And so for 6,000 years, peyote was used as a traditional medicine. Its primary use was to relieve pain and to treat inflammation. The medicine man, when asked by Richard Evan Schulte's, the father of Ethnobotany, said that we use peyote the way the white man uses aspirin. In 2008, our scientific founder, Charles Nichols, at LSU discovered that some psychedelics are hopefully anti-inflammatory of dose concentrations that are unlikely to be perceptible. In 2013, a few blocks away from here, I found that Elucis pursued this particular opportunity. I was at the time at NYU, studying to be a psychotherapist. And that's when my training from my days at Goldman Sachs kicked in, and I realized that this was going to be a huge opportunity. So I'd like to say we were the first psychedelic company, and quite ironically, our first objective was to develop these drugs for sub-perceptual use. And so we have conducted clinical trials with LSD at sub-perceptual dose levels. We've also developed an entire pipeline of new chemical entities that appear to be hopefully anti-inflammatory at sub-perceptual dose levels. And we are going to be treating chronic inflammation associated with aging. Aging both drives inflammation and is driven by inflammation, a process called inflamaging. And the compounds that we are developing have efficacy in multiple translational models. So whether it's inflammatory bowel disease, whether it's respiratory asthma, whether it is cardiovascular disease. And strangely enough, if we can move quickly, the first psychedelic drug may be approved for ophthalmology. And that's where we're focusing our initial efforts. And so ultimately, we were inspired by the example of GW Pharma. And so from a cannabis perspective, that's where we're coming from, which is to take a stigmatized drug and make it a valuable medicine, develop it just like any other life science company. And that's what we're doing. We are dedicated to the transformation of psychedelics as medicines. And we think that given the preclinical evidence, the opportunity dwarfs that of anything that we've seen, certainly in the cannabis space. And it's very exciting to be involved in that effort. Let's start on the line here. Right. Yeah. Yeah, thanks for having us. Florian Kothauer is here for the time of my experiences. We are a mental health care company that is also looking at psychedelics, but more broadly an innovation that's on the space of mental health. And our core focus is basically communications. It's addiction, depression, and anxiety. And we started at a time, basically, out of very personal motives. So the founder and, more broadly, a team member had a very personal exposure to mental health illnesses or disorders. So myself suffered from anxiety disorder in my teens. We're taking years old. So for me, therapy worked quite well. And then there was another life event two years ago when we lost the mother of my wife to cancer that then deeply traumatized my wife. And for her, the usual treatment pattern that are available, our standard of care, didn't really do anything, didn't really work. So a friend of mine and co-founder of the Thai actually pointed us to the therapeutic potential of psilocybin. And it was going on in Japan Hopkins in 2016, and then Barbara L. Griffith. And that was basically the starting point that we realized as it was such a healing experience from a wife when she had a high dose of psilocybin years ago, where it's sort of legal. And yeah, that was kind of the main driver. And we started one 12 years ago, had complex pathways of one of the first portfolio companies, or platform companies, and then moved on to onboard, not all, over the last one and a half years, seven more companies that are dedicated to really make a leap forward in this space in terms of bridging the gap of what's available right now and what's desperately needed for the millions of people that suffer from these three indications. Thanks. Yeah, okay.  I worked in the foreign industry for the last 10 years. I've been working in various biotech companies. I've been doing this orders and since about July, I've been working with the IT team as the CEO of Perception. Perception is one of the portfolio companies. Perception is not per se a psychedelic company, but I think because we're developing our ketamine, which is one of the two bisoners of ketamine. And ketamine's been on the market as an anesthetic for 50 years, a lot has known about it. But I think the discovery over the past decade on the increase in use of ketamine for treatment of depression in an all labelled setting has really opened up the door for what I will call mental health treatments that were inspired by some of the psychedelic. So we are developing our ketamine, which on paper actually looks like the less open isomer of ketamine. And but when you look closer, and when you look at the animal pharmacology, there is a very strong argument that the antidepressant effects are gonna be much more separated from the sedative effects or the dissociative effects of the other antidepressant or the receding mixture. So this is our goal, is to develop our ketamine for the treatment of depression. We consider ourselves a mental health company, not a psychedelic company. And in fact, we're hoping not to have a psychedelic side effect of pyroclastic or ketamine or another. So I wanna start with kind of a larger question here. Obviously we are in the early stages of research as you guys can speak to, but from a business or financial perspective, how do you decide what specific ailments begin targeting and how do you look at the research coming out of that? You feel free to chime in, but we'll start. Okay, well, so when I started way back a few blocks away from here, the original thinking was, how can you treat the greatest amount of suffering or the least amount of effort? And how do you create the greatest commercial opportunity? Because you have to attract a lot of capital to conduct clinical trials and to do life science. And so the thought is that this shouldn't be done any differently than traditional life science. And so we should identify the fastest path to market with the greatest unmet need. And so psychiatry is very difficult to develop in. And certainly I have a tremendous amount of respect for maps and compass and your son and all the efforts that are underway to treat depression. Ophthalmology and inflammation not as difficult because it's very definitive. You can see the drug work, right? There's no question as to placebo effect, or very little question. And so our thought was the 60% of human disease burden is associated with chronic inflammation. So that's probably a good place to start. Then let's go based on the models that we have, the animal models that we have, and let them guide us towards the indication. And so we use those animal models to guide us towards optimizing the drug. And so looking at the unmet need and then looking at the pre-clinical data, we then factor in the commercial opportunity. And if you line, if everything is a check on all those boxes, then you move forward. Now, our first study is with microdoses of LSD. And that was because if you don't know the name of the drug, it hits every therapeutic target in Alzheimer's disease. However, if I walk into a venture capital office and ask for money to do an Alzheimer's study, I'll be lucky not to get punched in the face because there's been so much money lost in Alzheimer's therapy. Better to start with a much faster path to market with something with much lower risk. And then when we establish group of concept in tissue that looks a lot like the brain, you know, the retina is really the front end of the brain, then we ask for the bigger checks and we go after the widowmaker in pharma, which is Alzheimer's. Yeah, can you keep going? Yeah, yeah, I couldn't agree more, I guess it's not a surprise that we also followed the approach of looking at the amniotic elite and the commercial potential. So I think in general, we can split our approach to induction therapy that tries to tackle trauma or lack of meaning that is often the underlying cause of addiction and depression, and then more as maintenance or bridging therapy with the other compounds that we have in development what's kind of a common approach that we have is that all those compounds are inherently dearest as they have. In one way or the other, proven to be safe or efficacious in humans, either in a googly or based on the data that we have for instance on the psilocybin from the 50s and 60s. So psilocybin has been or has been sold by senders back in the days. So basically looking at compounds where we're fairly certain that there are no big surprises on the safety side and we at least have any gold evidence that they're efficacious, such in the case of psilocybin, iodine and so forth. So that's to your point. Yeah, and I think to echo Florian's point, which is a very good one, I'll just quickly. Using anecdotes and historical data, I think this is really what gives this area a very attractive profile from an investor perspective. The fact that these compounds were in use for 6,000 years is a pretty long phase one study. And I think also echo the point regarding the safety profile, being able to use compounds that have extensive testing in preclinical studies gives this area a huge degree of attractiveness from an investment perspective. There's I think 40 or 50% of all drugs fail at phase one. And the fact that we know that these drugs will not fail at phase one from an investor perspective, we think is a very attractive profile. I would have a few comments to this because I agree with both of you, I think. And maybe this is biased from 20 years of karma, but I think you really wanna start with the end in mind in any investment. How are you going to get out of it at the end of the day? Are you going to sell it to somebody? Are you going to market this yourself? And if so, how are you going to do that and do you have the resources? So I think with any investment, and especially in the life sciences, you really have to look at three things. Is there a personal commitment? Are you excited about the story? And the story can be personal. The story can be, I just love the science and I wanna see if it works. The story can be the patient, which I hope is always in our minds, in our hearts somewhere. And then you have to start thinking about other things. Is the team in place or can I put the team together? So you have the story or the science, you have the team. And then you have to start thinking about and you have to be brutal about this. What is gonna go wrong in this story?  Biotech should be presenting to their board of directors every quarter. What is the experiment you're gonna do that means we never have to meet again?  You're going to be making it sexier for the next round of investors or for the person at the end of the day. But you really have to have, you have to have a dispassionate look at the data and you have to basically separate yourself from all of the things that got you excited about it in the first place. So I'll turn to a pretty basic question. Obviously your research subjects, the US are federally controlled. Can you talk about some of the difficulties with A, like accessing quality supply and B, maybe even the funding to do so? And whoever wants to start can jump in. Well, I think so, yeah. We can. All right. Any other communication? We're gonna jump to a few things. So in this deal, I think the fact that you're dealing with controlled substances will always put, it's not necessarily a hurdle, but you can usually, I just found the regulatory agencies to be actually quite reasonable when you talk to them and you lay things out and you have the proper controls in place, but it will slow things down. So it'll be more denied if it's more of an issue of speed than anything else. In any clinical trial, picking the right patients, getting access to the patients, having the right KOLs, it's gonna find you to test some growth. Yeah, and maybe adding to this, I think we've seen since 2017 that the regulatory agencies in particular, the FDA is very open to new ways or new innovation in this space, especially also psychoballies. So a mass-received breakthrough therapy designation for the NVMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD 2017, followed by cumbersome pathways with psilocybin for kidney-resistant depression, and also USONA-received it for a major depressive disorder. So we see a great openness in the space from regulatory agencies as well as also from the science community. So this year at the AACMP in Florida, there were different panels that were actually putting this on the agenda and talking about psychedelics as a potential medicine. So that's very encouraging from my perspective. And in terms of funding, I think it was mentioned, I think in the previous talk. So over the last two, three years, I'd say traditional, investors were reluctant and skeptical. But this year at JPM, we saw that this is really changing and that there's a real interest in not picking up from a farmer, but also from the more traditional crossover funds, biotech funds. So that's very encouraging to see. Yeah, I would say, so I was a naive amateur walking into all of this. I came from a background on the trading floor and so I had to learn how to conduct a clinical trial and do all of this. And so it was quite strange. My last day at Goldman, if you would have asked me what's more likely? You're abducted by aliens or you're sponsoring a clinical trial, getting LSD to be elderly in London, right? Well, I've heard of alien abduction. And, but there we were. And so what were the hurdles of doing that? Well, the good thing about LSD is that it has a remarkable safety profile, right? And it has extensive preclinical literature. So when we approached the MHRA, which is the UK Regulatory Authority, and we came in with the thought leaders in the Alzheimer's space saying, hey, this is worth a try. They were not only supportive of it, but very encouraging. And I'll just echo the point that Florian made here is that the regulators are clearly not a barrier. They're in fact, waving the green flag. They are very encouraging. They know more about this space than many of the scientists in this space, right? And in terms of its history, I'm quite impressed with their knowledge, both the FDA and the MHRA. I would say that the other challenges, patients, certainly recruitment rate, as any good clinical trials expert will tell you, it's just about how many patients you can get in and how fast you can get them in. We were advertising for our studies on the back of double-decker buses, which kind of blew my mind. Would you like to participate in a study? Didn't mention LSD, getting a recruitment rate high enough to get your trial done quickly is really crucial, because every moment in the clinic is costing you a lot of money. And then lastly, in terms of the capital, I think that's really the big question. And again, I point to GW Pharma, right? They're a $4 billion market cap company, but back in 1998, no one wanted to touch them. And the way they got their first clinical trials funded were from individual investors and family offices before they were able to attract institutional capital. I was also a JP Morgan, and I had a lot of great meetings with very large, very well-known VCs, and they say, oh, this is very exciting. We want to back you, but get the asset to phase one B first. And so there's an opportunity for investors that are not traditional life science investors to play a crucial role with a lot of the companies that may not be kind of venture backed. And so I think there's a unique opportunity, but that window is going to be closing very quickly. So I wanted to drill into that a little bit. Can you paint a picture of who is funding this region now proportionally? Obviously retail and administrative family offices, but when will we see the first pension backed VC, like, what's that? I think that's probably a better question for Florian, because a tie has raised a significant amount of money more than any other for-profit venture in the space by far. I would say that if you look at our cap table and who funded ELUSA so far, my wife kids that I used to have money and now I don't. So certainly I put in all my money into this because I'm never going to see anything like this again. I'm all in. And the people that came in either were convinced that I knew how to make money, they knew nothing about psychedelics, or they had some sort of life changing experience and that they were committed to the mission. And so what's interesting is that oftentimes people think that investing is kind of a neocortex type of thing, like you evaluate this, you evaluate that. I found that to be not the case after 15, 20 years of trading for experience. It's just emotional. And to the extent that people feel like it's a good investment, then they tend to be involved in this space. Asset managers, they act more like herd animals. And so once the lead steered starts moving in this space, you'll see the whole herd moving to the space. Florian, same question. Obviously, like Shulmi said, you guys have raised a lot of money discussing what you'd like to discuss. Can you talk about what your investment space looks like? Yeah, sure. I think you can basically identify three groups in general that we can talk with or that we raise money from in the past. So certainly the visionaries like Peter Thiel and Steve Gerbson were involved in, or were at work with Facebook, Tesla, and Spice, I think they really believed in this. They did something big there that deserves to be backed. So it's gonna be impact investors and mostly family offices, billionaires that believe in the cause that we're doing. And the second group is more than we'll mention investors, kind of as I would maybe call them. So looking for the next trend after cannabis, after crypto, and seeking a good return of investment. And then the third pocket, and that's something that is picking up now only over the last month. I would say serious interest from pharma and more traditional biotech investors that we're so far staying away from the field. Terry, similar question.  How's working with a ketamine, I guess, different than any other drug that you've developed in your career? So I actually come from the research side. Research side, yes. But it's an important differentiation because for that question, I'm used to being the first person to ever made a molecule. Ketamine's now in the market for 50 years. It was made in the 60s or the 70s. So for me, it's really a good often question to really sort of skip the whole classic R&D pace and can move right into development. But it's actually an interesting molecule because it's been, R-ketamine, not ketamine, that's very, very important that we talk about the single-aximum here. R-ketamine has been half of every dose of ketamine that's been dose for the last 60 years.  This has been phase two, three on the market for generations. And that extremely high dose is compared to what we're going to be looking for. So there's this tremendous database that gives us the two things you need in a molecule. You need to show that it works. Well, we know it's going to be safe. I don't think there's any doubt about this. Even our informal discussion with regulatory agencies, they accept this. They certainly want us to go back and doxomize and cross some T's, but they accept the fact that this is going to be safe. That's the doses we're going into. And now the question is, is it going to work? And what does that window and what does state mean? So we're pretty sure from the animal work and from some anecdotal studies that our ketamine is going to be a very effective and rapidly-acting antidepressant. Our challenges are to figure out how to dose it and there are various ideas there. And our real challenge is to show that this compound has a therapeutic window between activity and sedation or disassociation or disassociation that makes it suitable for home use so that it doesn't have to be given in the clinic for a psychiatrist's office. And if we can get those marks, this is going to be a tremendously powerful tool for patients and for psychiatrists. And that's our goal. So I want to take a forward look now at the policy side of things. What, I mean, in very broad strokes, like where are we going to see some of these compounds maybe a decade down the road? Like are they going to be rescheduled? Who have you different schedule? I'm kind of curious about what your perspectives are on that and Florida may be excited to do it. Sure. So hopefully in patients, so that's our focus. And so, you know, I'm generally skeptic about kind of the legalization and enriching this field because it's such a powerful compound that should be given a safe and very huge clinical setting in, so that's the time's conviction. So it should be likely to be kind of a proponent for recreational use here. So I guess it will take another three to five years to really roll out the psilocybin therapy. So that's basically the most advanced compound that we have in development on the assigned platform. So basically demonstrating that it's scalable that it actually can reach the patients in a stable manner. And then also with the other compounds, I think scalability is one of the key challenges. I think it was also raised in the last talk. So that's what we're dedicated to kind of put money behind to then also see how you can treat those molecules to make the duration shorter and then to kind of, well, while maintaining the efficacy to kind of demonstrate that it's scalable, but for us it's really about getting better treatments for patients, not so much think about what could be happening from a policy perspective in 12 years. Sure. Tommy, do you have that perspective on that? Yeah, we're focused on like a different space. So psychiatry has its own challenges in terms of having to do this inpatient or not inpatient. The drugs that we're developing by definition have to be outpatient. And so the good thing is that there's very well-established precedent for this. Many people don't know there's actually an FDA-approved psychedelic on the market. It's not a great trip, but it's called Orcasirin, Belvic. And so Belvic, when you take four times the recommended dose, you're gonna have a bad trip. And therefore, when arena pharma got FDA approval for the drug, it immediately went to the DEA and the DEA scheduled it, scheduled three, right? There's another great example, jazz, pharma and Zyram. Zyram is also GHB. GHB is scheduled one, but Zyram is scheduled three. And the reason why it's scheduled three is that jazz, pharma created a risk mitigation system to prevent the misuse or diversion of that drug to people that were abusing it. So I think that the answer, for example, LSD, if we demonstrate that LSD is efficacious in preventing Alzheimer's disease, there will be a way to get it to patients. And I think that the answer there is frankly you look at the safety margin. The safety margin for LSD is not gonna be great, right? If you take twice the recommended dose, you're gonna have some psychoactivity. And therefore there will have to be a robust risk mitigation system in place, which is something we're developing and we think is a core part of the intellectual property. But when it comes to ophthalmology, when our safety margin is better than Lercasurin, then we would expect to be scheduled four or even unscheduled, depending on the safety margin we demonstrate. And the FDA and the DEA have been incredibly clear on this point. And so I don't think there's any ambiguity in terms of how these drugs are gonna be classified or regulated. Okay. And I think in general, once you have extra proven medical use, that it has to be rescheduled in a certain period, so. And we've discussed this a little bit that the regulators are forward-thinking on this, but how much of your roles is educated regulators? So I'm gonna start with you. Yeah, zero. The education maybe is more about how the drug actually has effect in the disease, but as it relates to policy implications or educating about psychedelics in general, I can tell you that the representatives of the FDA, the DEA, the MHRA, they've had a tie and compass roll through town. They've had Rick Doblin talking to them for at least a decade. They've had Usona and Hector talking to them for at least a decade. And so just by process of osmosis, if nothing else, they know more about psychedelics than I think, again, a lot of researchers do. And so I give a lot of credit to the regulators. There's absolutely no amount of time that we have to spend to educate them about this class. And I would just say that we're not in those discussions yet. We've been lost my thought here. So, but I think in general, there is a knowledge base there. And we just have to make sure that any acceleration of a path, the regulators will always want things done completely and thoroughly. And we just have to make sure that any diversion from that, because in our case, that means been around for a long time, it's completely justified, it's completely discussed, it's discussed in the old point, and we don't go in with the assumption that, of course, they're gonna let us get by with this study instead of that study because it's been around for so long. So I think that discussions with regulators should always be an open discussion. It should be a peer discussion. And you should understand what their job is. Just like they understand that your job is to bring in patients. So we're coming up on the end of our time here. Should we take it over to Q and A? Is that sure? Questions? How should we do this? Can start right to laugh. Hi guys. So I have two quick questions. First, for Terry, how do you think of the academy to to addressing depression as opposed to LSE or other psychedelic compounds because I'm seeing that both potentially are cured. So how do you think of, what is heading in the right solution versus psilocybin? That's my first question. How do I answer the non-psilocybin? So I'm not sure I'm qualified to do this. I'm a PhD chemist, not an MP psychiatrist. So, but I would just say that right now at least that there's a lot of clinical use of ketamine mob-labeled and depression clinics. And I think that there's a growing understanding of how to use at least ketamine in clinical use. And I really don't know how that compares to, for example, to use of LSE and clinical use, which is probably a very good idea.


I'm Ann Marie Slaughter, I'm the President and CEO of New America and I may never have been prouder to say that than today. So we are quite literally trying to welcome you to a New America. For the next day and a half we want you to imagine that we are a country that can fix our problems, meet our challenges and renew ourselves as we have done often in our history. And indeed we have been in places that were just as difficult and seemingly broken as we are today. What we are offering are 10 big ideas for a New America. We are going to be talking about education and economic policy and manufacturing and foreign policy and leisure, a subject of great interest at New America. We are looking at warfare, the Americas, we have a set of ideas really across the board. All of those ideas are by design too big to be rolled into a policy proposal. They are umbrella ideas. They all integrate technology. One of the things New America is most committed to is the idea that going forward in some cases code is policy and in every case code is a key part of policy but code alone won't do it. So in Washington I spend a lot of time talking about technology. In Silicon Valley I spend a lot of time talking about policy process, politics, all the stuff that has to go hand in hand with technology. And all of these ideas are designed to reach way beyond the Beltway to reach to a next generation of politics, of coalitions that are really drawn together by the substance of the ideas. So big ideas, bridging technology beyond the Beltway, we really invite you to imagine with us. Punctuating those panels on ideas will be our keynote speakers and I'm going to introduce our lead off keynote speaker, Senator John McCain in just a minute. But before I do that let me just do a couple of thank yous and shout outs. So first of all I have to thank the law firm of McDermott, Will and Emory for this fabulous space. New America has been looking for new space, I think I've just found it. So we are really delighted that you are hosting us. And I want to thank our media partner, CNN. They are streaming, live streaming our keynotes and they're lending us a lot of their talent. We will hear Candy Crowley interview Van Jones and that will actually be on the Sunday show. And for featuring op-eds on CNN.com they will also be rolling out longer versions of these ten big ideas over the next six months. For all of you, we are live streaming this. That means some of you, certainly all of you up here and even in the audience this is being captured for immortality at least until our tech team manages to figure out how that won't be forever and protects our privacy a little better. But for now it is going to be live streamed so be aware of that. There are cameras in the room all day. And also for those of you who are tweeters please do tweet away. Our hashtag is ten big ideas. So with that it is really my pleasure to introduce Senator John McCain and I'm going to do it in a way probably even he doesn't expect. That's a good thing. So I wrote a book called the idea that is America and it was published in 2007. I was on the board of New America at that time. But what inspired the title was the following and it's a letter and it says do we sacrifice our ideals to preserve security. Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice. My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is America. That letter was not written by John McCain but it could have been but it was written to him and it was written by Captain Ian Fishback who was a captain in Iraq who was trying to publicize the abuses at Abu Ghraib and he knew that if he wrote to John McCain he had tried to go through the hierarchy he had gotten nowhere. He knew that if he wrote to Senator McCain he would be heard and he was heard and Senator McCain fought the good fight on Abu Ghraib on torture on Guantanamo on standing up for the ideals that are at the heart of the idea that is America and of a new America. I can't imagine anyone better suited to open our conference. Thank you. Well thank you Ann Marie for that kind words and kind introduction and I'm not sure that I can take credit for a lot of things that I have done although I love to but the issue of torture I thought was a fundamental about what America is all about and I appreciate you mentioning it because I still view it as one of the more shameful chapters in our history and I'm glad that we were able to through our efforts in the Senate pass into law prohibition for the use of torture and observance of the Geneva conventions of which the United States is a signatory and I thank you for not mentioning that I ran for president I appreciate that. After I lost I slept like a baby, sleep two hours wake up and cry, sleep two hours wake up. Since we're here at the law firm I would like to thank them for their hosting this and naturally I have to tell my favorite lawyer joke which is do you know the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?  I thought I'd throw that in there. I don't think I'll be invited back. Anyway I also want to thank Ann Marie for not only all of the advocacy she has done for freedom and democracy and human rights throughout the world but also especially on the issue of Syria which maybe we can discuss a little more and I appreciate her and the New America Foundation for giving me an opportunity to be a part of this important conference. You've asked me to speak to your theme today big ideas for a new America and I'm grateful that you think a member of Congress has any ideas let alone big ideas in case you missed it the approval rating of Congress is 12% I've not met anyone in that category yet and in fact we're down to paid staff and blood relatives I tell that fairly often but I'm not making this up my mother is 102 years old I received a call from her the other day and she now we're down to paid staff so anyway what I what I suggest is not new it's actually an old idea but it's one that I fear that our nation is losing sight of and that is the indispensability of American power influence and leadership in the world all of us believe that ideas can change the world that's the whole reason why we are here today and the ideas that America at its best has championed indeed what Ann Marie once called the idea that is America have done more to make the world a better place than at any time in history it's because of our ideas that it has become customary for overwhelming majorities of people in governments around the world to believe that the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the government that the rule of law is the beginning of justice that free markets and free trade are the basis of all successful economies that state sovereignty is not a license to commit mass atrocities and genocide that all human beings have equal rights that should be respected that torture should always be forbidden and that wars of conquest and aggression should be relegated to the bloody past these ideas are not America's alone we don't own them but these ideas have not advanced on their own or implemented themselves more than any other factor or force or nation America has done that yes we've had help we've had partners and allies of immeasurable value we still do but ultimately our ideas our values our vision of a better world the norms laws and institutions we have established to sustain these ideas and the conditions of peace and security from the Americas to Europe to Asia in which these ideas have been able to flourish and spread all of this progress has been underwritten by one thing most of all us American power influence and leadership our capacity diplomatic economic and yes military to make our ideas reality and to provide the most reliable and effective check against the forces that would do harm to our vision of world order that is the role that America has played and still must play unfortunately we are not in recent years more and more Americans have come to believe that we should mind our own business and let the world sort itself out many have assumed that America could pull back and somehow the void would be filled by the growing progress of the 21st century not by its violent fanatics and aggressive dictators its torturers and human traffickers and deniers of human dignity its brutish rulers who believe might makes right and all the other forces of tragedy of which history is so replete too many Americans seem to have forgotten that while the tides of war may recede what holds him at bay most over time is our power and influence it is troubling enough to see this denial of reality among so many Americans and members of Congress of both parties including I'm sad to say among some Republicans but to see it from the administration is not merely unfortunate it is dangerous at a time when the global demand for American leadership and influence has never been higher our presence seems committed to supplying as little of them as possible and we see the consequences of this all around the world we see it in Syria where nearly 150,000 people have been killed one third of the population has been driven from their homes radicalization and sectarian conflict are spreading throughout the entire region and there is no end in sight we see it in the terrorist safe havens in places like Syria Libya and Iraq where the sworn enemies of America and our friends are once again gathering by the thousands and planning to do us harm and they're nearly uncontested in doing so we see it in the heart of Europe where Russia has invaded Ukraine and redrawn internationally recognized borders by force all for the sole purpose of acquiring another country's sovereign territory and resurrecting its old imperial ambitions we see it in Asia where China is using his growing power and military capabilities to assert territorial claims without basis in international law change the status quo unilaterally and harass US allies and partners in the South and East China seas and we see it in America's allies from Europe to the Middle East Asia who are now questioning whether they can rely on America as they have for decades to meet our commitments to our mutual security if our red lines are crossed American power and influence are still the currency of the international order but at present we are growing risk of the geopolitical equivalent of a bank run people in governments friends and adversaries alike are coming to see America as weak unreliable and lacking credibility and they're starting to suspect that America may longer have the will the capacity or both to meet its obligations as the underwriter of the world order many are panicking others are celebrating some say that we cannot afford to take a different course I believe we can't afford not to and the choice is up to us the greatest limitations on America's role in the world today and in the future are not those of capacity but rather of our resolve and imagination we have a growing population the world's most dynamic economy new sources of energy that are the envy of the world the most proven and efficient effective military on the planet and a risk-taking society with a nearly infinite ability to revitalize itself so this is not a question of capacity nor is it a question of options the president would have us believe that the only alternative to our current course is a series of land invasions and wars without end literally no one is arguing for that and it is a height of intellectual dishonesty to suggest so it's also a disservice to our citizens for whether it is in Ukraine or Syria or the seas of Asia or elsewhere there is a range of options at our disposal that can put greater force behind our diplomacy restore the confidence of shaken allies reestablish deterrence over our adversaries and make our ideas reality this will require us to do more and bear more burdens and accept more risk in the short term and it will certainly require an honest conversation with the American people about what is at stake but let no one suggest that we are without options let's be clear question we face is not whether America can maintain its preeminence and the world it sustains but whether we will choose to do so I believe we must most importantly because it is in our national interest no one benefits more from America's ideas of world order than Americans themselves they make us more secure and more prosperous but our ideas also benefit others it is no coincidence that the greatest expansion of peace freedom and prosperity in human history has occurred during the period of America's global preeminence and we must never forget that if America chooses not to play this role if we allow if we allow ourselves to believe that we cannot do it anymore or that we have no good options as if we ever do our best ideas and highest hopes will be left defenseless our world will drift further into chaos and tragedy and the costs of this calamity will ultimately be born not just by foreign peoples but by Americans our people are never eager to engage in foreign policy and that is the healthy attitude of democratic citizens but there are events and threats in the world that demand our attention and from which we cannot isolate ourselves and it is in these times that the American people rely on our elected leaders most of all our president to lead them to explain to them where our interests and values are at greatest risk why we cannot afford to be disengaged why delay will only allow present dangers to grow into more dire future threats and what we must do that is what America's greatest leaders have done they have rallied the nation to play the role in the world that only America can that's what we need now more than ever thank you very much thank you senator mccain the floor is open for questions or comments or insults yes that Hallstead our founding president is our own hemisphere and there are indications now that Russia plans to partner with China in building a Nicaragua canal an alternative to the Panama Canal which has been a bedrock of our you know Monroe Doctrine if you will for a long time Russia apparently his plant has agreements with Nicaragua to start building military bases on naval patrols surveillance technology all in Nicaragua secretary Kerry recently said that the Monroe Doctrine is essentially finished and over so what does this mean exactly what should America's response be if in fact the Chinese and the Russians start building an alternative canal if Russia starts building a major military presence just south of our border what are your thoughts please first of all my thoughts probably my highest priority right now is Venezuela there is brutal repression there the economy of a very oil-rich country is in the tank the mr. Maduro the successor to mr. Chavez who joined Carl Marx and Joseph Stalin somewhere is is brutally repressive and also I believe they have some ambitions to have that spread throughout the region and closer and closer ties with Cuba I think what what Vladimir Putin is doing as far as far as the visit of a Russian ship to Havana and this rumors of different activities is mainly meant to sort of appease his chauvinistic kind of ambitions frankly the Panama Canal is just been expanded in the most dramatic way which is going to change frankly a lot of our economy because of the different ports that they're now a major large ships are going to be able to transport goods to so I really don't see how another canal for Nicaragua would be really it fundamentally economically viable so I think it's more a little bit of saber rattling on on Putin's part part of his ego that needs to be constantly fed by the way in case you didn't know I'm probably the only American you'll talk to you that was censored by the Arizona Republican Party and sanctioned by Vladimir Putin now that's a that's a rare combination you gotta admit so I worry a little bit more about China not from a belligerent way but when you see what China is doing throughout the world particularly Asian parts of Africa you'll see that they are spending a lot of money and they're building roads and they're doing things for these countries and they are increasing their influence or rather dynamically and significantly and they have the money to do it and Russia doesn't so long term I would be a bit concerned about the broadening and deepening influence of China which isn't it doesn't mean they're going to start a war with us but I think it's pretty clear the Chinese don't share our values and our ideals thank you Cathy I find it difficult to disagree with most of what you said but of course the the question is is implementation and execution at this stage in the game what would you if I know you don't want to talk about your run for the house but if you had if you were president what would you be doing in Syria not two years ago but now thank you for that question you know we talk about things that keep us awake at night nothing really keeps me awake at night but I can assure you that sometimes I wake up and think about my visits to the refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon it's most gripping experience particularly the children the children everywhere children the teacher was taking me around the refugee camp she said see all these children cinema can I said yeah she said you know they believe that the United States has abandoned them and they're going to take revenge on the United States for for us failing to help them you know that we may be raising a generation of jihadists in these refugee camps that are now holding Lebanon has a million refugees what do you think would be like to have a million refugees in the United States of America which is 50 times larger so what I wanted to do from the beginning was give assistance the resistance there was a seminal moment after about two years ago when Iran convinced Hezbollah to come in to into Syria 5,000 seasoned well-trained not afraid to die fighters plus dramatic increase in that went arm shipments from Russia and from Syria and Iranian right revolutionary guard people really orchestrating the tactical on-the-ground conflict that that was a seminal sea change in what was going on in Syria at that time and I and I understand your question but at that time weapons supplies would have probably done it now we are giving more weapons my friends I read in published reports that we are giving them some anti-armor capability and we're giving them some more capabilities it's and again I read I'm not briefed by and I quite often I don't want to be briefed because I don't want to say anything that is classified but there's a great debate on whether to use and give them anti-air capabilities well I think that if we'd have done that a year ago that might have shifted the equation but as Bashar Assad has progressively consolidated power and and continued to succeed I believe that we would have to establish a humanitarian so that we would protect where we could help refugees where we could help the free Syrian army where we could help our free Syrian army now and the Syrian National Council are guys they're fighting on two fronts they're fighting Bashar Assad and they're fighting al-Nusra and ISIS radical Islamist organizations and so it's almost a self-fulfilling promise that well we may be ended up with the two evils well we may if it continues in this fashion but that's because we're not helping these people defend themselves so that's what I would do and I would give them anti-air and the most atrocious thing is going on right now my friends it's called barrel bombs you know what they are they're massive cylinders filled with with scrap metal that by helicopter the Bashar Assad is dropping on populated areas of Syria a atrocious weapon with impunity and you know it doesn't discriminate who it kills and we sit by and watch this well all I can say is a humanitarian zone anti-air capability and also weapons that they can they can use effectively thank you I'll just add I won't add I second everything you said but I will just add that it the equivalent of refugees is the equivalent in terms of percentage of the population of Lebanon and Jordan it is the equivalent as if all of Canada all of Canada moved to the United States it's one-third a tenth of the population so just for comparison and refugees disrupt economies it isn't just you've got refugee camps you've got drives labor costs down or drives real estate prices up it does all kinds of has all kinds of destabling effects on a country and we all know that Lebanon has a history of not really a very unstable situation because of religious differences so the questions are all coming from our left I'm looking at there's a microphone right there I was a prankie with the Christian Science Monitor recently I did a piece on what some are calling a new isolationism in the United States spoke about and one thing I was surprised to find was that actually this sentiment is strongest among young people young Americans and very often and I went out and spoke to some and very often they say look we failed in Iraq we were failing we failed in Afghanistan so it's not an answer anyway so we might as well just mind our own business as you said so how do you respond to that sentiment that well we've failed when we've become involved what would you say especially to the to the young people thank you and I apologize if my answers are a little too long but they're they're good questions what is happening in the Republican Party especially is what we have seen ever since the beginning of the last century the isolationist the America firsters the bring America home come home America all of that has been a fight within the Republican Party prior to World War two was Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh and many Western Republican senators versus the internationalists and after World War two was the Taft wing of our party versus the Eisenhower wing after Vietnam it was the same so there's always been that element within the Republican Party but it also mean and by the way I grow a little tired of that well we are war weary because of Iraq and Afghanistan yes we're war weary my friend we were war weary after losing 55,000 young Americans in Vietnam in a war that we lost so all I can say is that it requires explaining to the American people what's at stake both strategically and in our values one thing I know about young Americans is they're idealists as they should be and I was just up at Kennedy at the school up there and and had a long conversation with a lot of young people and some of the smartest in America up there at the Kennedy School and I have to say that it has a lot to do with leadership I still believe that President United States sat in the Oval Office as by the way I personally told him he should do and say here's the pictures here's the pictures my friends of these 11,000 dead Syrians have you seen is anybody seen those pictures on the internet my god dead children dead people starved to death I mean and this is what Bashar Assad is doing every American every young American should see those pictures and and say and we want to help these people and we're not going to send American troops it continues to I don't get angry anymore it saddens me when the president United States says that all we want to do is send troops that is not true you know Henry Kissinger used to say when he was Secretary of State the bureaucrats came with him with always three options one nuclear war to do nothing and three what the bureaucratic option was you know and unfortunately people like me are being painted as we want to send American troops and that is not true so I guess what I can say is we need to explain to these young people as I try to do up at Harvard and I talked to a lot of young people around the country that this is offends everything we stand for and believe in and it doesn't mean we're going to shed American blood but it does mean that we can give them assistance so that they can fight for freedom thank you yes thank you very much it's good to see you again I'm ambassador of Azerbaijan it's good to see you again and thank you for a very strong remark I want to follow up on the earlier question you spoke very firstfully about the situation in Ukraine and I represent the country which first faced a violation of a territorial integrity when our land was occupied by Armenia today we've seen the violation of territorial integrity of Georgia mowed over today of Ukraine but under the circumstances I want to ask the same question what do you think the United States can and realistically can do at the moment because you know the perception has been that of very significant disengagement from the United States from the area so our people everybody in the region is watching and you could see the voting at the United Nations General Assembly when only several countries supported Ukraine territorial integrity that was Azerbaijan Georgia mowed over the rest either abstained or voted against like Belarus and Armenia so I think this is a very indicative situation so what would you do sir thank you first of all I believe that there is nervousness throughout the region including Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan because of Vladimir Putin's ambitions for the restoration of the Russian Empire now I'm not making that up it was Vladimir Putin that said several times that the worst event of the 20th century was the breakup of the Soviet Union he said it I didn't say it obviously I would never but so we have to understand his ambitions and by the way on Ukraine I believe it was Kissinger that said that Russia with Ukraine is an empire and Russia without Ukraine is a country now I have said that Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country and I take that back I take it sweet so mafia run gas station masquerading as a country but I think there's reasons for countries to be in the region to be very nervous I was in Moldova recently and in the Baltics you know if there's ever a wonderful example of transition to democracy it's the Baltics and they had a lot of help from Scandinavian countries but it's really remarkable what they've been able to to achieve but they're very nervous Estonia has 30% of their population Russian speaking and one of the things that I've learned and I should have probably known it before all of the media of Russian speaking media is dominated by Russia there is no counter so every one of these people who are Russian speaking in these countries are exposed to Russian television which is one entertaining but to all the news is obviously slanted in the pro Russian anti whatever the government is that they're broadcasting into I don't know what Vladimir Putin is going to do and I'm not sure he knows what he's going to do I predicted that he would go to Crimea as soon as Yanukovych fell because he felt he could not give up Sevastopol there's no way that you can have a vision of the restoration of the Russian Empire without your avenue to the Mediterranean but I don't predict what he's going to do next the separatist thing is already pretty successful for him without having sent the troops in but he's not keeping 40,000 troops on the border just because of military exercises that's why I think he's still examining it his options it didn't it shouldn't surprise us about Odessa Odessa is a major port for him so it shouldn't surprise us to see this this turmoil and conflict in Odessa then the question is what about Moldova and Transnistria he's already got 1400 Russian peacekeepers there and again I'm not sure what he's going to do but look at what the price he has paid so far de facto annexation with Crimea without any really reprisal and by the way Ukraine was guaranteed their territorial integrity plus Crimea in return for giving up the world's third largest nuclear inventory when do you think the next time a country with nuclear weapons is going to give up their nuclear weapons so all I can say is that I think that the Vladimir Putin will go as far as he thinks that he can and we all agree that the long-term prospects for Russia are terrible we also agree that the long-term prospects for the United States economy are very good the reasons why stated in my in my statement but in the short term I really worry about the degree of adventurism and not only the Baltics but also Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan take and to this customs union idea of his and we need to reaffirm our alliance and our commitment to these countries and by the way one of the other things that I would do is advocate for a path to admission to NATO for both Georgia and especially Georgia and Ukraine if they desire it I just want to add one thing there for that comes from actually the Sedona forum the McCain Institute hosted foreign policy forum in early April and one of the speakers talked about Ukraine and mentioned that one of the things that Putin is very frightened of that we don't hear nearly enough about is that if the Ukrainian revolution is successful that encourages the Moscow based opposition the Russian opposition to think they they actually can achieve their goal to if it is possible to overthrow a corrupt government by taking to the streets and if you can do it in Ukraine which is the Russians regard as they're a little brother and that's probably putting it nicely that this could happen in Moscow too and it's something that one of our fellows Emily Parker has written a book about in terms of the internet the digital connections between the opposition in both these areas so destabilizing Ukraine in itself accomplishes the goal of convincing his own people that it's not worth trying I think that's very important a very important point they certainly didn't want to see on a coverage overthrown in a freely elected government there there's one here senator Sharon Burke with the new America Foundation I have an observation and a question for you my observation is just that you used to be a very forward-leaning and pragmatic voice on climate change and I certainly hope that we'll hear you louder on that again my observation my question is given the vision that you've laid out about the security challenges for the United States what kind of military do you think we need and is that the military that we have and that we're investing in where would you like to see changes or if it's perfect the way it is that's very interesting given your position and the Senate Armed Services Committee on the issue of climate change I believe that climate change is taking place I also am deeply disappointed in the backers of efforts to address the issue because they fail it completely to support nuclear power I know nuclear power works I know it's clean and I know it can be done instead the Democrats shut down Yucca Mountain there's really no movement towards it you can build a million solar panels and it won't make up for one nuclear power plant okay and until my advocates to do something about climate change come on board on nuclear power include me out because it's not the it's not the complete answer but I would be glad to work with them in any fashion in the second question I'm very disappointed in the military in this respect that we still have terrible cost overruns in our acquisition process it is offensive to all of us when an aircraft carrier has a three billion dollar cost overrun I wanted a new aircraft carrier I thought we needed it but I didn't think we needed it to go from ten billion dollars to thirteen billion dollars the recent Air Force program that wasted two point three billion dollars and we had nothing to show for it is disgraceful and we still don't hold anybody accountable and so I think we have to fix that second of all sequestration is a meat acts not a scalpel there are many areas particularly in these huge gigantic that many thousand person staffs that these various commands have and we can consolidate these commands there's a lot of things we can do but the problem is the sequestration affects the most difficult part of the military and that's operations and training and that's always the first to go they cut out the operations and training and that of course reduces our ability to really fight well and with it with efficiency so I'd like to repeal sequestration but I'd also like to see our acquisition process reform to the point where we're not wasting these billions not millions not hundreds of big millions billions of dollars of taxpayers money and no one is ever had held accountable for it and it's hard for me to go back to Arizona and say I want a strong military and I want to spend more money on defense when we have these outrageous cost overruns it's it makes it difficult for me so we have time for one last question I'm just going to say you do to do too I'll just say though that Sharon Burke who just asked that question just joined new America this week and before that she was the assistant secretary at the Pentagon for energy operations so we couldn't be happier to have her here asking those kinds of questions I've got to go here over to the to the left Suzanne thank you I'm Suzanne DiMaggio from New America Foundation and senator thank you so much for being with us today US undersecretary state Wendy Sherman is currently in Vienna right now with her team negotiating the fourth round with the p5 plus one and the Iranians so I have two questions the first is if they reach a deal that addresses all the key US concerns on level of enrichment centrifuges so forth intrusive inspection regime what are the chances of that happening do you feel optimistic at this moment and secondly of course for the Iranians to agree this deal they are looking for sanctions relief as a leader in the Senate if a deal comes through that is a win for the United States will you use your leadership role to support the president in delivering on the sanctions relief necessary to make this deal a reality your second question first I'm working with Lindsey Graham and some others that any agreement would have to have congressional approval your first question I see no way that we're going to have a good outcome one reason is it because right to enrich there's no reason on God's green earth why Iran should maintain a right to enrich we will provide them with all the nuclear material they need if they want to build nuclear power plants or use it for peaceful purposes we already gave that up the the issue of the centrifuges right now the 19,000 centrifuges are still spinning right now there's been no change at Iraq the facility there and and very importantly we have had no restrictions or curbs on the development the way you make a nuclear weapon is three components one is the material the second is the warhead in the third is the delivery system neither nothing is being done on the on the warhead or the delivery system and we have information that they're developing much longer range missile capability and they are continued developing nuclear warhead none of those are in part of the investigation this smacks of the North Korean deal under Bush and so I am I think we gave away on the right to enrich to start with was a cardinal error in serious mistake as far as the sanctions are concerned it was the foreign minister of a Middle Eastern country that told me that there's not an empty hotel room in Tehran they're all doing deals now with the Iranians in anticipation of further relaxation or large gaping holes in the sanctions Noel Perry last question hang on one second Mike's coming your way Noel Perry founder of next 10 in California senator I wanted to ask a question about the South China seas and what you would do there and then also if I could just go back to Syria and to Ukraine if there's one thing that you would do if you were president one action you would take today in both Syria and Ukraine what would you do thank you three questions smuggled into one but in Syria as I mentioned I established the humanitarian zone provide them with the weapons that they need to defend themselves and I would put some pressure on if I could on Russia and Iran and for what they're doing in the supplies there as far as the South China Sea is concerned my friends we have to understand the Chinese the Chinese are not interested in World War three but the Chinese believe that the last 200 years were an aberration of history and that it is the Chinese traditional role to be the dominant power in Asia and they are now moving in to Deng Xiaoping's fifth priority which is build up of their military on the day that Chuck Hagel came over and announced our reductions in defense spending the Chinese announced a 12.2% increase in their defense spending what we need to do in Asia is spend a lot of time and effort which this administration is is to their credit with alliances of various countries the model for it is in Australia and now we just concluded an agreement with the Philippines and that is joint operating bases not the traditional military base where you had the hospital in the school and all of that but a joint operating bases where our forces come in operate and train with the host country and other countries that come to train with you and then we leave and that I think we could conclude that with a number of other countries including Malaysia including Indonesia and by the way including our friends the Vietnamese who are scared to death about China by the way there's a ship it's named after my father and grandfather and it's in port in Yokosuka Japan and about a year ago it paid a port visit to the port of tonight tonight which shows that if you live long enough anything in this world so I think there has to be a united front of the United States and ASEAN countries in particular to make it clear that China faces a united Asian community that there are certain things that they simply cannot and should not do I worry a great deal this latest confrontation with Vietnam in the last few days my friends I don't like to be too too critical but the Syria decision not to strike reverberated throughout the entire globe not just in the Middle East but throughout the entire globe and it is having an effect and the third part of your question you just one action in Ukraine oh one action on on Ukraine I'd give them weapons with which to defend themselves my friends it is it you can't make this story up after a heated debate in the White House they decided that they would send MREs I think we now should call it MRE diplomacy they decided they would send MREs to Ukraine but then someone said well we don't want to fly them in in a US aircraft because that might provoke Vladimir Putin so we lease German trucks to take the MREs in my friends these people don't have body armor they don't have night vision capability they don't have defensive weapons and would be providing them defensive weapons allow them to defeat Russia and Putin's troops of course not nor probably did the British and the French I mean the French and others help us during our revolution think it would help us defeat the British but the point is it would have helped them around enormously and believe me at some point Ukraine will fight the people of Ukraine have a long history of fighting for their independence and they're not going to sit idly by and watch Vladimir Putin absorb part of their country into into Russia so it's just shameful that we wouldn't give them weapons with which to defend themselves and the other of course as I mentioned if they want to be part of NATO there's a long process by the way you don't just accept membership and we could put them on a military assistance plan and by the way we have military assistance programs with at least 50 countries it would not be an earth-shaking or new kind of thing to give these people some ability to to defend themselves I was in my dad I was there and I saw 200,000 young people mostly young people in sub freezing weather demonstrating because they didn't want to be part of Russia their European culture music food everything and and most essentially freedom and lack of corruption they want to be like part of Europe not part of Russia and that is true even in you Eastern Ukraine amongst young people and it seems to me that we ought to be assisting them rather than watch sitting by and watching them be dismembered could I could I've mentioned one of the issue with you really quick that's going on it just came from a hearing and that's this veterans issue that you know is so terrible their allegations and they haven't been proven but there certainly is great great amount of substance to them that we're not giving the care to our veterans you know in Phoenix vet veterans hospital there's an allegation that 40 people died while waiting to to receive care it's really terrible short-term we got to fix it long-term we should give our veterans the flexibility to go anywhere to get the health care they need in other words why should a veteran have to ride in a van three hours from Sholo Arizona down to Phoenix to the VA hospital to get care when he could get it from a caregiver right there in his hometown we need to embark on a path to give our veterans the ability and flexibility to get the care that they want now PTSD war wounds prosthesis there's nobody that does that like the VA but and we need to preserve that but overall this is really a national tragedy particularly as we approach Memorial Day that that it appears there's very very strong evidence that we have not provided our veterans with the care that that they have earned and the next time you're going through National Airport or any place else and you see one of these young people in the uniform just go over and say thanks for serving thank you thank you thank you


Just outside Seattle, Highline Public Schools is developing bilingual teachers from the ground up. In Chicago, the Public School District has launched multiple programs to grow the ranks of its teacher workforce. And in Mississippi, rural school districts are helping community members gain a foothold in the teaching profession. These programs share the goal of developing teachers from the community or the community. Known as Grow Your Own or GYO, this strategy is designed to address multiple challenges including persistent teacher shortages, a linguistic and racial mismatch between teachers and students, and the misalignment between teacher preparation and local needs. GYO programs are partnerships between school districts, teacher preparation programs, and or community-based organizations that recruit and prepare local community members to enter the teaching profession and teach in their communities. GYO is a powerful strategy because it amplifies the assets of community and seeks to leverage those assets to benefit students in local school systems. This emphasis on who to recruit is really a critical component of GYO programs. This means GYO programs propel paraeducators who support the education of our most vulnerable students to the head of the classroom, seek out high school students with the goal of bringing them back to their home districts to teach, empower parents to pursue degrees in teaching to give back to their local schools and communities, and focus on non-traditional candidates who work full-time or students who are entering college for the first time. GYO programs often offer financial assistance, paid job-embedded learning, academic advising, flexible scheduling for courses, mentorship, tutoring, test preparation, and a cohort model. GYO can be supported in various ways. For starters, policymakers can expand access to community-based teacher preparation programs, and philanthropic groups can financially support local teacher pathways. Higher education institutions can develop strong partnerships with local school districts who can invest in developing local teachers themselves. But most importantly, everyone can champion GYO as a community-based strategy to improve public education.


They tell you that all religions are supposed to be respected and that ultimately all religions lead to the same God. That is, of course, a contradiction that cannot be if you actually look at the theology of those religions. Judaism proclaims that Jesus is not a prophet. Islam, on the other hand, does. Christianity goes so far to say that Jesus is actually not only a prophet, no. He is God indeed. So those three belief systems cannot coexist. It is absolutely impossible. It goes against simple logic and the law of non-contradiction. Jesus cannot be God and not God at the same time, which then implies, of course, that Christianity cannot be true if Islam is true.