levin and mark stein. here is your book from 2005, and exposing liberals gone wild and on the back flap be have some endorsements. ought to be shot between those viet cong allies. one hideous looking and tremendously stupid woman. a fetid heap of parent droppings. on go the endorsements. what inspired you to put this? >> the blurb that feeds the narcissism of the author and is supposed to jump out at the consumer. i thought i would turn the blurbs on their heads. pretty much encapsulate the whole spirit of the book which is to talk about the intolerance of the far left. the racism and sexism of so many of my critics. i thought that deserve greater attention than it would ever get

in the mainstream media. the book is filled with chapter after chapter of both kinds of attitudes not only towards me but most conservatives in public life and certainly to george bush. this was written in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential campaign. one thing that is not gratifying but i think is noteworthy about all the books i have written is they have had a much longer shelf life than the years in which they were published. just the past week i posted a whole new batch of the same kinds ofe mail that i called attent it is never ending and certainly a bottomless source of fodder for an author and a writer. >> your children could not read

this book. >> what is striking and i made note of this as i talk about the response that i provoke as a writer, as a very public conservative, so many people are willing to sign their actual names to these attacks. i talked about this on the book for trail and college campuses when i talk to young people. there is a special kind of animus the left hasconsvatives conservatives. that was the point of the blurb on the back and the chapter in unhinged. on my hate mail, there are other public conservatives, minorities and women who have of the or the

same slings and arrows. sarah palin is the most recent and notorious example of a public conservative provoking this sort of unhinged to bar of race hatred among the left for what? for standing up and advocating a certain set of principles and ideas, representing an ideology that the left which is supposedly open-minded and tolerant is absolutely allergic to. >> why do you think that is? >> in the case of someone who has female chromosomes and brown skin, a conservative of color, there is a sense of betrayal. i saw this early on in my days at oberlin, merely expressing

openness to the ideas of thomas stole or ronald reagan put you in the camp of minorities who had left the plantation or betrayed the expectations and entitlement that the left field to you and your soul and your mind. >> why did you choose to go to oberlin college which is known to be a relatively liberal -- >> that is a good question. i thought i might be a world-class pianist. i played for my elementary school days through high school. oberlin had a wonderful conservatory of world-class music, i spent a semester there and studied with a piano professor, robert shannon, for less than a semester and my eyes were opened to how talented

people were, students were. i realized i wouldn't be able to compete in that. so i ended up sticking it out and majored in english. my formative time was spent on campus working for a conservative publication. i have talked about this many times over the years because it really galvanized me politically. our campus's version of the darkness review. the mere expression of conservative ideas provoke such hostility on campus. almost a tribal atmosphere in the early 1990s with regard to political correctness and multiculturalism. our campus like so many other liberal arts campuses had segregated dorms, segregated academic departments. i had never seen that kind of,

what i consider avert racialism through my childhood and young adulthood. i had experienced a overt racism. i grew up in rural south jersey, i had been all kinds of racial epithets and it is so much easier to deal with that kind of ignorance. it didn't have that extra sense of patronage, the patronizing attitude. the condescension and the sanctimony that that kind of racial segregation was intended to help -- help rather than hurt minorities on campus. >> what did your parents do? were your political views already set by the time you got to oberlin or were they changed? >> i was always a congenital social conservative. i grew up in a catholic family. my parents came here from the

philippines. my father was a doctor and my mother was a teacher but not overtly partisan. that was a great love of reagan in our household but we were not the kind that went out and campaigned or had placards on the front lawn. wasn't until we got to oberlin and i became politically charged. >> you were known as the e lebron of -- >> among the more polite ears things. >> how did you get that modicum? >> it was a result of the riding i had done. 9 now husband started up this campus publication. the oberlin forum, the darkness review of campus. it was so mild and so moderate in comparison along the political spectrum. going after some of the left's

big sacred cows including affirmative action helped win me back that on. >> your former colleague and friend brian preston was quoted in 2007 as saying this about you. you have never met a happier person than michelle malkin when she is in the thick of a fight. she enjoys the combat of ideas. >> i do. i have oberlin to thanks for that. the outspoken and lightning rod that i am today, i was very shy when i was in elementary school, almost paralyzing the so. i had speech classes reichard barely get the words out of my mouth. when i got to oberlin i came to the realization that if i didn't say something, who would?

i feel god blessed me with certain talents and abilities and skills of piano playing wasn't ultimately one of them. the written word certainly was. speaking in public became part of that. it wasn't something that came to me as easily as other people. it was a skill that i learned and especially in the twenty-first century you need to do all of those. you can't simply expect the words to communicate themselves. my career has evolve from being a syndicated columnist to doing books and blogging. i try to leverage it all to get my ideas out there and i do enjoy it. i don't shirk from it the way i

might have were it not for oberlin. >> do you still have shyness to overcome? before appearing on this program or on fox or wherever. >> only nervous energy. you have to develop that machine overtime. it is not shyness or nervousness but more things like anticipation of getting out in the public square. >> executive editor bill sure about you, she is a flame thrower by choice, she is capable of sobered dialogue and you can find more of that in her earlier work as a columnist but clearly she feels she makes a greater impact with her present approach. >> bill and i went to school together. he is an oberlin alum and worked for me when i published the oberlin forum and we have a

friendly relationship over the years. i interviewed him when he came out with a book a couple years ago from my website hotair.com. we carried over the years. i think it is a convenient myth to think of somehow changed my message or change my method over the years. the have heard that from other former colleagues of mine who i worked with at past newspapers as well. but if you go back and look at my early writings there really isn't much difference in either fema or telephone from what i do now. the difference now is there's a greater audience for it because we have so many more ways to reach people than we used to. if you go back and look at what i call my creek blog, website i ran after i left the 1990s, the same issues i care about than i care about now. corruption, pork, matters of

race and ethnicity. with all due respect you are wrong. >> what of your books, in defense of internment, this is where you're right in the introduction, this book defend the evacuation and relocation of ethnic japanese from the west coast as well as the internment of enemy aliens and japanese and non-japanese during world war ii. my work is by no means all encompassing. my aim is to provoke a debate on a sacrosanct subject that has remained and debatable forlong. >> what is interesting is there are so many more people who think they know what the book is about and haven't read it than who have actually taken the time to do that. i treasure each and every reader particularly the high-school

history teachers and college professors who pick up the book and have incorporated it into their curriculum. i filled a huge vacuum in the debate over the very difficult decisions that franklin roosevelt and his staff in the war department in the attorney general's office, all of those folks had to make when they made these decisions. the passage that you read is a careful distinction because it is all encompassing term, internment, that has been calcified in history lessons. to refer not only to the evacuation and relocation of those 1,124,120,000 residents who are first or second generation japanese and others including enemy aliens nearly half of whom were from european ancestry who were actually in

turned in the department of justice camps. the whole book was inspired by the rhetoric that i heard after september 11th from various ethnic lobbies, not just asian americans but arab groups and muslims who opposed any form of national security profiling by invoking the world war ii episode. it is a dangerous example of civil-rights absolutism that prevented folks then and now all from having a really important discussions about the kind of detention procedures, court proceedings and privacy policy and intelligence decisions that needed to be made after september 11th. wondering about each and every one of the books is they are relevant even today. here we are. guantanamo is about to be

closed. it might take longer than the obama administration anticipated. he essentially adopted the same position on indefinite detention as the bush and administration has. to them the only quibble is where the enemy combatants should be detained. that is extraordinary. in essence they have the same position that i do and yet i am the one -- has folks who embrace the kind of procedures i talk about in the book, are considered beyond the pale, traitors to the american tradition, etc. etc.. i think that the reaction to the book was interesting. the debate we are having all the personal in the last chapter of the book talks about policy

recommendations. >> your first book, invasion, how america still welcomes terrorist, criminals and other foreign ministers. you detail some of the deficiencies. >> no question about it. it wasn't just about illegal immigration. it is hyper focused on the southern border. that is a huge issue but not the only issue when it comes to treating immigration as a natural security concern. the state department was the weak link in the homeland

security situation and the episode certainly highlights that. you have a bottom mentality of handing out visas blindly to anyone and everyone who asks. those officials do not have a war footing. they did not have a war footing during the bush did ministration and prior to september 11th. if you're going to hand out a temporary business visa they should have business other than plotting to kill americans on american soil. the christmas bomber, you have a case where even absent the intelligence information that we

apparently had in the fall and in august about abdul, absent that specific information about his radical muslim aspirations he fit a certain profile. he was young, single, mail and muslim and he was ruthless. he had no connections to his home country. he traveled the world extensively. he was playing with everything in cash. and get this person got a temporary visa to be here in the united states for two your period. there are already existing regulations in the state department in federal law that flag this kind of person as someone who should not be getting a visa in this country. but there is a knee-jerk opposition to profiling of any kind. it is not simply racial or ethnic profiling. it has to do with a certain

behavior the personally certain type of class profile. this is a theme of both innovation and in defense of internment. we have to be very precise and specific about what we mean when we say profiling. both of those books go into great detail. >> you wrote invasion in 2002. what has changed? are we still stovepipesing information? >> if you listen to all the intelligence officials over the last week and the weekend, it has become the case that we are doing more of the collecting of the ducks but the connecting is incomplete. i went into great detail about how we already had many existing databases in place but there was so much territorialism and the fbi does not want to share its

stuff with the cia. neither of those agencies share information adequately with information authorities and even if you look domestically, there are so many forces on the left that are working to undermine the cooperation that we need. there is now a new push for amnesty for the millions of illegal immigrants who are already here. as part of the package being pushed primarily by louis gutierrez from illinois, they would like to torpedo what i think is one of the most useful federal, state and local programs in this country, 214 gee -- 287 gee. they take criminal illegal aliens who are already in jail and instead of releasing them, they work with local sheriff's

offices to make sure those people are enrolled in the deportation process as their jail terms and prison terms are coming up. the open borders lobby which includes not only the usual forces but a lot of big businesses. there are a lot of republican borders too, don't want to see these programs working because the future amnesty of voters will end up on democrat party voter rules. more cooperation means a more effective deportation system. this is anathema to the open borders laboratory. the amnesty package would torpedo that program completely in the face of all this evidence, in many cases i talked about in invasion where

deportation would have saved countless american lives. >> welcome to booktv's monthly index program. this month it is author and blogger michelle malkin, author of four books. culture of corruption, shea sold over 300,000 copies of this book since it came out earlier this year. if you would like to dial in and talk with michelle malkin, go ahead. 737-0001. or 0002 for those in the mountain and pacific time zone. booktv@c-span.org is our e-mail address. michelle malkin, in all four of your books you have a lead foot note -- in culture of corruption there are 70 pages of footnotes. why do you make such an effort? >> it is not something i think

about. i document everything. there is increased scrutiny of conservative authors whether deserved or not. other source material. i like to give credit where it is due and i like to arm the reader with as much information as possible. having made the transition from the newspaper columnist to logger to author, it is a natural byproduct of my own work habits and my own information gathering propensities. when i open a book i would like to know where they got that information and if it is primary source material bleaker still if it is a government document, why put it on. in culture of corruption i preach transparency. if i preach it i want to

practice it. there are too many people in government who have made those promises about transparency and failed to live up to them. >> you write all the time. you are either twittering or writing on your blog all the time. where do you find the time? >> i travel wherever i go and have why 5 and i am always plugged in. it is very easy to be on the road, mobile all the time. i have become real efficient at doing it. some people ask how can you do it? you have a family, two little kids and you are on line all the time. a lot of the work i do is in the middle of the night. i know best this over the years, i started my first blog in 2004.

a lot are insomniacs. a lot of times i do my work in the middle of the night. word press which is my blogging platform has the ability to advance schedule posts. i can set it for a certain time to posts so it appears online a lot when i do this advanced schedule thing. weeking i'd do during the day and i right two columns a week on tuesdays and others theys. >> when you pick a topic for your columns? >> i will decide -- -- and make

judgments about news cycle. it there is no breaking news and i worked on something more in depth or investigative that might be the time to pick that topic. oftentimes i will have to write off of an obama press conference or a speech. the last month was the breaking news covering beat legislative battles and the health care bill. >> it is january 3rd, 2010, to let everybody know. the most underreported news stories of the year. you talk about the czars in government. >> this has been a theme of my reporting over the year and i have a chapter in culture of corruption. i have been tracking this since obama has been in office and it is a very worrisome trend of having this in wouldn't amount

of cadre of appointees who have were not publicly vetted or went after the senate confirmation process who have control over large slots of the economy and our political life. i am the only one who has these concerns. is not really a partisan thing. when you have russ feingold on the left, robert byrd, senate democrat guardian of the constitution raising your request in about this, early enough that it was incorporated into a culture of corruption, it is very significant. one of my final columns of the year i highlight two of the czars you deserve more attention and i think there is a growing movement in washington to pay more attention to this shadow

class governing czars. >> why did you leave washington? >> because i could. i left a year and a half ago. it is a rare opportunity when you can make a choice to jump off of the treadmill. i have been in the beltway circuit for nearing ten years. i have two and young kids. it is an unhealthy environment in many ways to raise kids particularly for me. there are so many people who cannot separate their politics from their personal life. to me life is much bigger than what is going on on the buzz

pages of the washington post. it is not an all consuming thing for me all the time. you see me on line and i talk about it and i am engaged in the world of ideas and the battlefield, but when i am out with my kids and have to grit my teeth worrying if somebody will come up to me and yell at me for what i have written, there have been parallel situations. when my family is punished for my political views it is too much. i came to the point when i made the decision to live anywhere in the country i wanted to and thank god for the internet for making that possible. we moved to colorado springs a year and a half ago.

>> why choose colorado springs? >> there are many factors but it was the cost of living, quality of life. it really is god's country. the quality of the public schools. the charter school system is one of the best in the nation. really a hidden gem and a living laboratory of parental choice in action. every public school should be a top-notch academically rigorous charter school. going back to the political sphere, there is a huge opportunity for the republican party to reach out to nontraditional constituencies because you see a lot of minority parents, urban parents and the most successful charter schools are in places like south central los angeles and urban parts of houston and inner-city, new york city, and these are our

parents and teachers who have to battle traditional hard left democratic constituencies to improve the quality of education for the kids. >> first call is bob from silver spring, maryland. please go ahead. >> i have a question. which political party do you believe has done the most to improve the quality of life in the u.s.? >> before she answers that, which party do you think has? >> i think the democrats have. >> host: why? >> caller: a number of reasons. it would take quite a while. they are trying to improve healthcare. they are trying to improve the safety and security.

they gave us social security and medicare and worker rights and a long series of legislative victories which in my view has substantially improved the quality of living. >> host: thank you. michelle malkin? >> guest: i don't define the success of a party or gauge its effect on americans live by what it has given us legislatively. that is a core fundamental belief of mine. a party that has improved my life is a party that leaves me alone, that has constrained the power of government to interfere in our lives. unfortunately, i've been very vocal about this, the republican

party has failed to live up to its core conservative principles in so many ways. this was the battle that so many grassroots conservatives have with the bush administration over the years whether it was the expansion of the federal and educational and no child left behind act, the prescription drug plan, pushing illegal alien amnesty, in the last several months of bush's tenure, doing what i consider socializing the economy for barack obama with these massive bailout, the mother of all bailout, with t.a.r.p. and the republican party is not going to reclaim its mantle as the party that stands for liberty and freedom in the free market until it reconciles itself with that sort of history and does something to

change it. the reason you have seen the rise of the tea party movement over the last year which was covered extensively is because the republican party has done such an abysmal job of selling itself convincingly as an alternative to the democrat party. >> host: some would say the tea party movement is as unhinged as the liberal you talk about. >> guest: i disagree. what is unhinged ise washington establishment to this bonafide grassroots movement. they have been smeared as racist, refused to attend these parties and see what the folks are about. they have been likened to the taliban and terrorists by the obama administration, the democrat majority, and i think there is a large amount of production going on here and i

noted over the past year that there are many prominent liberal commentators from paul krugman to frank rich in the new york times who have talked about the wright's in same rage that each and every one of these tea party protests had been peaceful until reintroduction of these leftist groups, notorious incidents earlier this summer, where a black man who was selling don't tread on me flags was eaten by fdr you agitator's. who is selling the insane range here? it is interesting because what the tee party movement is doing now is showing the fissures

between the national gop establishment and these grassroots conservatives and independents. it is a myth that this is somehow top-down control movement because it was you wouldn't have seen the incredible outbreak of outrage in the twenty-third special elections where the gop establishment sided with this radical left-wing candidate and tea party types locally and conservatives nationally held the gop's feet to the fire. >> next call from hope sound, florida. dave. >> caller: as always thank you for c-span. first an observation. one of the reasons the state

department is so lax on a visas from muslim countries is the state department bureaucracy has historically been pro arab. they have been pro arab ever since the 1940s under henderson and robert kaplan has written a terrific book all about this. the question i called on, one of the few tax chiefs who did not get through the senate confirmation process, senate democrat leader tom-0, some pundit has actually said he might replace rahm emanuel as white house chief of staff and that is a job that doesn't have to go through senate confirmation. i would like to get your thoughts on that one. >> guest: he is one of those

washington fixtures that never goes away. even after his senate nomination had been withdrawn he didn't go away. i point out in culture of corruption that he was behind the scenes pulling the strings. this is a guy who is everything opposite of hope and change and has been instrumental in the entire health care debate and shepherding this thing through and trying to salvage it. it is a very telling picture of barack obama meeting at the white house on a regular basis and i haven't heard what the caller was certainly comports with the way this administration has done business in the past. >> host: we have a fleet from laura logic.

i haverd michelle malkin refer to democratic and independent haulers as moonbats but she dismisses criticism from left? >> i have certainly called some of the more extreme callers who have called in with attacks on me over the years as moonbats but that is all in good fun. i am sure the freedom first community is a win not. they fret over this mano a mano and the names and so on. it is part of how we do business. >> what misperceptions are out

there? >> the tackled one which is from wilshire which you read that somehow i intentionally right things to provoke people. it is the opposite. what i say just naturally pushes people's buttons in part because they don't expect it. they feel entitled for me to think and speak the opposite way. i have been around a long time. i started riding my newspaper column in 1992. i built up a long public record and i think there are a lot of people out there who are upset i have been around as long as i have. my death has been predicted prematurely over and over again. my professional death, my public death. that is part of it.

particularly with conservatives you reach a point in your public career when you become more of a totem than a real person. it is much more convenient to think of me for example as a partisan republican, always issuing the bush line when everything i have done over the years undermines that myth. in one of the bush administration's for most critics on everything from immigration to hurricane katrina to its decision on the dubai ports, and now because i have written my latest book culture of corruption which is a frontal attack on this administration's lack of ethics and transparency, there's this idea that i hate the man or dms is built on something personal. all i did in that book was way

out who he associated with, who brought him to power, who the money -- more leftists are coming around to the same conclusion that this is a chicago corruptocrat who consorts with tom daschle -- michele obama is a bitter and resentful woman who has done a skillful job of milking the politics of racial resentment to get ahead.

to pander to the far left. her own public record as a member of the university of chicago medical center staff among administrators and over the years, running a nonprofit called public allies, gives you insights on what this woman's priorities are and what she may be doing now. the fact that there is a scandal, talk about underreported stories of the year, involving the americorps specter general who was booted out, smeared by the administration and some how incompetent, because if you look at what he did it speaks volumes. he was investigating all sorts of corruption and misuse of americorps funds and happened to be american -- obama cronies.

from the reports of conservative media outlets, byron york at the washington examiner, michele obama had a role in that. can you imagine if laura bush had her fingerprints on something like that? this was a common theme of the book in my blog and my columns. the government standard and scrutiny from conservative republicans versus the liberal democrats. >> host: keep the volume turned on. randy in virginia. please go ahead. >> caller: good morning. happy new year. thank you for your efforts on behalf of those of us in the real world. let me give you an example of those not for profits in the hospitals and schools and how

they are connected in this not for profit industrial complex along with the educational industrial complex. i own a small business called virginia is for education that has visited a thousand schools with a mobile city that has a physical fitness and educational component, all within this mobile trailer. not only do i go to school but i follow the children home into depressed neighborhoods so that those children whose families don't have disposable income can participate in a health and wellness program right on their corner that kicks the criminal element off and affords a healthy and clean environment for those children to be mentored. i create critical mass on the corner where it is needed. i bypass all of the federal programs that give out millions of dollars that have no outcome.

in five to eight years, with the amount of students that i visit with, i will have almost the entire state of virginia in my voting bloc. we remember how much fun they had in my program whether it be on the street at the blaze and girls club in the school. if you just show a little interest. right now we have a body shop who is setting up to bring another acorn upon us with this new law he is trying to impose with new money coming down to trickle-down and it is trickling down to everybody who is part of the not for profit. >> host: wrap this up. michelle malkin. >> guest: are am glad to hear

about his local efforts. that is the kind of community service that i hear. just to shuler in this into the culture of corruption themes i have a whole chapter about a corn. we heard a lot about that in the last couple years no thanks to most of the mainstream media that scrupulously avoided this or in some cases suppressed the story about the acorn scandal but barack obama is so strongly defined by his short stint as a community organizer for project vote which was then acorn affiliate's and there needs to be more scrutiny paid to this organizationhundds of nonprofit supposedly non-partisan tax exempt affiliate's who have absorbent hundreds of millions of dollars over the last decade.

thanks to the government.com and a pair of undercover journalists, we know a little bit about that and there has been an attempt to rollback the funding and we currently have a couple inspectors general of various government bureaucracies who are investigating but at the same time we are looking back we also have to look forward because over the past year this administration passed a community service expansion of $6 billion. unfortunately that was with some bipartisan corporation. that was important to these organizations, many of whom have engaged in suspect activities with that money. >> host: how many tweets do you send a day? >> guest: it varies. it tends to lesson when i am

occupied with my column. what i like to do with live legislative debate is live tweet for people and thanks to c-span we are able to do that. anywhere from five to 15. a lot of times i will send interesting links from folks that i follow and when there is breaking news, a lot of times you can get that on twitter before it hits the ap wires. we saw this during the iranian student uprisings over the summer. i think it is an amazing tool. there is still this antiquated notion among some media observers that quitter is nothing more than 8 vanity tool. it is about what i ate for breakfast and where i went shopping. it is good that they have this

misconception about it. it leaves it open for the rest of us to appreciate it and take advantage of what a great informative little it is. it is a great organizing tool. was on twitter that the tea party movement really spraying. twitter and facebook. this happened outside the mainstream media radar. outside the washington political radar. for somebody who is new to twitter you don't know where to turn or which communities to go to but if you get a bead on the right, the labels that gives you a sense of which communities are forming, top conservative on twitter was the first big go to place on the right for people to congregate. there is a lot of local -- colorado conservative have their

own cash tags. then there is a lot of funny stuff on twitter. i discovered the same thing that attracted me to the blogowsphere where you could find people funnier, smarter and more informative than most of the people you read in the newspapers. >> host: david carr has a column in the new york times saying twitter is here to say and it is not just a fad. you refer to books as dead trees. our books going away? >> guest: obviously this is the future of books. i read an interview with one of those magazines that will go by the wayside soon, an interview with jeff business. he talked about predicting dead

tree books would be gone one day very soon. there is a part of me that more than that. i use to describe myself as an ink stain reg. i work for a couple of brief days for the atlantic city press in south jersey as a press inserts and feeling the ink on my hands and having it in double, there is an old school feel about that and i missed that. my kids have grown up with me trying to read them the deer abby newspaper column but we don't subscribe to a newspaper anymore. there is that nostalgia that i will miss but the advantages of the way we can be plugged in is seamless. though from click to click from a newspaper column to the

primary source material to other views on it. it is an incredible opportunity to be an information provider. >> are you going to be writing another dead tree book? >> i am sure i will be. but i don't know about what. my plate is full right now. with continually updating hall of the themes in culture of corruption and hearkening back to the themes in my past books. over the last week, i have referred to i was on -- i was doing a news interview last week about the crotch bomber and referred to a prayer i had printed that was found in his luggage.

it said crave death, bring your passport and the prayer that was found, oh god, you who open l m. will open all avenues and this recurring theme of our front door, back door, revolving door, all the people who want to come here and do harm remains very true today and it is astonishing and disturbing. nine years on, so little has been done to shut those stores. >> host: jerry, you are on with michelle malkin. please go ahead. >> caller: immigration. you have spoken on that with lou dobbs and others. the only difference i see in immigration is we are seeing an increase in it. is this a world that will never

be run or will we some day and realize our institutions are failing us when solving new problems like this? >> guest: in some ways it seems an intractable political problem because you have got big business forces on the right and ethnic grievance groups on the left who are intent on undermining any attempt to systemically enforce our laws. when i wrote invasion are was inspired by a maverick democrat, barbara jordan from texas, who foresaw a lot of the national security problems we are having now. she was a minority. she was a black democrat from

texas. she bore the same strings and arrows of being a racist and zina foam and immigrant here for advocating that we enforce the immigration laws that are already on the books. because the open borders establishment can milk the emotional aspect of immigration it makes it extremely hard to fight against but there was a groundswell during the bush years against this. we were successful in killing a really or did new amnesty plan. people really need to go back and look at the recent history of these immigration battles because every time we pass some sort of amnesty whether a large scale plan or smaller amnesty that has been passed over the years, what happens is if you reward rule breaking you get more of it. every time we pass amnesty we

have gotten more illegal immigration. >> host: diane in arkansas. >> caller: first, let me thank you for dividing the phone lines as you have today. that gives us a truer view of how we out here feel and i wish you would do that during the week too. >> host: we do that on in depth every month. >> caller: we appreciate it. michelle malkin, thank you, thank you, thank you. you are a strong woman and we appreciate you for saying things we are not able to get out. some of the things we can't say. i am sick and tired of hearing how beautiful michele obama is. did we hear that about laura bush? and what pretty clothes she wears. i don't care for her clothes.

we have to listen to that if we listen to the news. can i tell you what happened to me at a tea party? it was a town hall meeting in october. i finally got called on to talk and i mentioned i watched certain things on c-span and i was told by this representative get a life, lady! they don't want us to hear or to know what is going on on the senate and house floor. >> guest: i made a point that so much mainstream media, the style reporters and political reporters have concentrated on her are a as the next jackie onassis that they have given short shrift to her public record which is why i devoted

the second chapter to michele obama. i have no opinion on her looks. i really couldn't care less about what belt she is wearing this week. i had an ongoing feature on my blog where every time there is a new magazine cover of michele obama or some fashion diagnosis of her eye counter it with substantive reporting work links to articles or information about what she is actually doing behind-the-scenes and sushi has surrounded herself with. some of her best friends are with her in the east wing including susan scherer who hired her at the university of

chicago medical center. these are women who have carved out mighty careers as public and political figures because of their money ties and their ability to raise funds for obama. this is a very tight knit circle and it crosses in between the east and west and it gives a lie to this idea that michele obama is simply there to hold tee and give nice tours of the white house christmas tree. she has a very definite and defiant political and policy agenda and she has surrounded herself with people who are able to help her carry it out. subchapter in "culture of corruption", valerie jarrett, godmother, confidant, slumlord. >> yes. before i go into detail about this, you asked me about myths about me or myths about my work.

and one of the myths that i have a blanket hatred for the mainstream media. well, i have one foot in the mainstream media. i've worked for mainstream newspapers since 1992. and one of the things i did in "culture of corruption" was give credit to those few mainstream media reporters who actually looked at the record of these team-obama officials and there was a "boston globe" reporter who i cite in the book, give the url, have all the foot noting and citations for who did an incredible investigative piece of valerie jarrett's real estate dealings. and it turns out one of the public housing complexes that she oversaw while she was president of habitat company became this dilapidated mess. and there were pictures and testimony from people who lived in this public housing project talking about, you know, what a danger it was to the people who lived there. it was filthy. there were rats. it was infested with rats.

and i think it's an interesting and telling illustration of the gap between the rhetoric of hope and change and the reality of how things are in barack obama's chicago. because valerie jarrett and richard daley, whom she was very close to, this is how she got into political life. she was general counsel there and she worked in the city planning department. came up with this grand vision for reforming the notoriously dangerous and criminal public housing complexes there. and instead of doing that, instead of improving the lives of the residents there, what it did was enrich a lot of real estate moguls, slum lords like valerie jarrett. but you will not read about this aspect in her life in all the profiles of valerie jarrett. instead, just like with michelle obama. we know what label what's on back of her designer clothes, we know what shoes she's wearing and the fashion designers she's

hanging out with, but we don't know about this history. and on the day before my book was published, july 26th, the "new york times" magazine did this massive profile of valerie jarrett. had this glamorous photo of her on the cover. it was absurd. 7100 words poured about how she was barack obama's brain, you know -- essentially the karl rove figure in the obama administration. it talked about the role that she played in ensuring that obama remains authentic. and what they meant by that was his racial authenticity because she shares sort of a similar background as he does of being, you know, multiracial and she's there as a check and a balance on him, apparently. but it didn't talk about all these chicago connections. and the way that she had made

money and the failures of her and richard daley's vision. and then this whole history came up again during the olympics debacle because, of course, it was the likes of valerie jarrett and the chicago cronies and richard daley who had pushed very hard for barack obama and michelle to go to bat for the 2016 olympics bid so that entire chicago contingent traveled abroad to make a that pitch. and it was a huge failure. and i think a turning point in people realizing the extent of the chicago way on the potomac. >> this is c-span's book tv. wanted c-span booktv. this is our "in depth" program featuring one author and his or her body of work. if you'd like to dial in a talk this month, (202)737-0001, (202)737-0002, mount and

pacific. twitter.com slashed booktv is where you can send a tweet to michelle balkan. bill in l.a., thanks for holding. you are on air. >> caller: good morning, ms. malkin, how are you? >> guest: good. how are you? >> caller: i just noticed on youtube there are 1600 videos by you and other members. so far, dishonest, nazi slut, a racist, prostitute. what the hell is going on? >> guest: we talked about this. this is what "unhinged" is about, a large part. a unique responses that i've seen to provoke among a lot of people. you mentioned videos on youtube. when i started hot air which is my group blog a couple of years ago we initially conceived as a

video broadcasting site. so it still has that component. we do original videos. great special correspondents that will do undercover videos for us, sometimes people will submit stuff. that one seems to have provoked the most. i like to have fun. on hot air, and i did everything from dress up as a cheerleader to a guerrilla. [laughter] >> guest: two would alter a. >> host: do you regret is the deal at all? >> guest: people as that, and i don't. you asked me again about people having missed about a. theirs is meant that i may perpetuay n. and with the videos we did in hotter, the show was called then. we had a show for a couple of years. i got to do a lot of things. that once was poking fun at the

retreatment algae and the white flag democrats over the course of the conduct of war on terror and iraq and afghanistan. this serious point has been underscored. a lot of ways it was a great way for me to poke fun at myself. i was the antithesis of a cheerleader in high school, obviously you can tell by my inability to get any lift on those jumped. that i was making as much fun of myself as i was of other people. but people on the left like to refer to that video as some sort of indictment of me. but i had a great amount of fun with a lot of things that we did. i also played the electric pia piano. the hot air readers got a lot of enjoyment out of it. we didn't ultimately make that our business model because it's hard to be financially

successful. it cost quite a bit of money to do. >> host: youtube band wanted of your videos, didn't they? >> guest: they did. the other great thing about that whole period of hot air was there we were in the middle of some incredible scrap, and the electronic frontier foundation actually help provide pro bono legal representation when you ng, universal music group tried to yank a video that i had done critical of the r&b artist. that was one example. the second one involved youtube itself, which yank a video that i had done on the mohammad cartoons or this was something that i blogged about extensively in 2006. and i did a little homemade, scratched it up, little video, talking about the history of violent jihad against those who

have dared to criticize and quote unquote insult islam. the video got yanked but there was sort of a spartacus effect because undergrad people went ahead and re- upload the video. eventually it found its way back there. but it was a subject of a "new york times" magazine piece a couple of years ago along with other examples of the thicket of tough policy questions of internet censorship, and the desire to push for freedom of money that has been, being spent information, you know, on these social networking sites. >> host: gary and marilyn. on a t.a.r.p., on the stimulus, you're on with michelle malkin. on health care, that's bugging please go ahead, ask two things. this country down, tax wise, i'd like to know with all the will we ever go back to a capitalistic country, or do you think obama's plan is to go through and turn us into a socialist nation?

>> guest: he's referring to an infamous strategy of the left, the cloward strategy, for those of who aren't familiar if you google it, there's a very informative piece, david horowitz with his frontpage magazine site on the strategy essentially creating false crises and chaos in order to secure the left agenda. as i said, earlier in the show, i think the bush administration helped inordinately, unfortunately, in paving the way for what obama is doing a. it was under the bush administration that t.a.r.p. was designed and first past. then it was some of those same architects for the obama administration, and i talk about the treasury department, tim geithner is a protége of some of that goldman sachs, government

sacks, access that are continuing this policy is not. and what i find particularly alarming in the last month is how many of these stealth bailouts have just been rammed through without any congressional authority or approval at all over the holiday weekend, for example. the limit on government aid to fannie mae and freddie mac were completely blown out of the water. where's the transparency? they snuck it in in the middle of the night on a holiday weekend when nobody was paying attention. of course, gmac is now being taken over by the government. and it's these takeovers that are occurring outside of the legislative sphere that are particularly concerning to me. and we have, essentially have that transformative agenda take place over the last two years. >> host: sarah, sedona, arizona. please go ahead with your

question for michelle malkin. >> caller: hi, happy new year. i'm a liberal. proud of it. it seems more inclusive, and you don't have to add the word compassionate to it to sound inclusive. and i would much rather talk about the subject you're talking about now than about it and michelle's shoes. reminds me of he's said it says nothing about power and michelle and says everything about us. so what i was talking, calling today to discuss -- i've had so many thoughts are holding, listening to your conversations -- that the whole dialogue on handling our own worlds humanity situations, the good and evil, etc., etc., it seems to be of our own making. and i wonder why we have to handle our own humanity problems

so inhumanely. and i really appreciate your opinion on that. thank you. have a good day. >> guest: i'm not sure what she's referring to, specifically. handling our humanity in inhumane ways. i suppose i can guess, that she's talking about the war in iraq and afghanistan, or how we're handling enemy combatants at wonton mulberry. and it's the opinion of the transnational left that it's america's fault that we have all of these problems and that detainee in a combatants at guantánamo bay for clair bidez quote unquote inhumane. although the transnational left and the domestic left don't really have much alternative. alternative proposals for how we're supposed to deal with the likes of the crotch bomber or the hundred more apparently

they're being groomed in yemen to come and successfully do what he failed to do. and the point of two of my books, "invasion" and "in defense of internment," is that we do not have a mature and grown up discussion of what we should be doing and how we should be doing it. because there are far too may people, and i'm not saying that the call is one thing, but far too many people who would rather us retreat into a fetal position than fight these declared enemies. who have none of the reservations that apparently the people on the left here to. >> host: three quick els. number one, michelle, why is there such a distinct division between liberals and conservatives? there's very little middle ground today. i think it's haves versus have-nots. that's from dell in florida. >> guest: i question a couple of the premises. the first premise of his

question that i challenge is that we are more divided than ever. in fact, what's interesting to me, especially since the summer, and since "culture of corruption" came out, is that you find more, now the him on some progressives and conservatives like myself in criticizing this administration's alliances with big business. for example. and i quote many on his progressives and leftists in the book and use the information that they gathered as part of my briefs. you have good government groups, and i don't agree with them on everything. but here in d.c., for example, how the obama administration fee to the fire on visitor logs and transparency issues. you had a strange alliance now of far left bloggers and some

established conservative veterans who are going after democrat like chris dodd, the senator from countrywide. and that's why he's in such trouble. not merely because of right wing partisan attacks. it's because independents and some of these on his liberals are very upset about it too and they see the hypocrisy of this guy who got his hands so deep into details of the financial services arm and now posing as a populist and as a chicken of working-class taxpayers. there are other issues we see some of the supposedly far left, human rights left, and evangelical conservatives, for example on some human rights issues, issues of slavery and women's rights around the world. and then certainly on things like the iranian uprising. they were both people on the left and right of principle who

have supported those movements over the years. i would think more on the right and left. but the coverage over the last, you know, six months has been united, particularly on twitter. you see some strange bedfellows on those issues. and then with regard to the question about haves and have-nots, it's a myth that the republican party is a party of wealth and party of big business that i talk about this in "culture of corruption," about the hugely, wellesley people who brought barack obama to power and who are in his administration. teeple who worked in the hedge fund industry. people who were bundlers of massive amounts of money, including people like desiree rogers, whose the notorious white house social secretary that she got her position because she was a bundler of hundreds of thousands of dollars for barack obama. so the old idea of that the

democrats are the party of the poor people and republicans are the party, is completely blown out of the water. >> host: next e-mail, michelle, have you and bill o'reilly reconciled your differences? >> guest: i work for fox news channel and i've worked with them for many, many years, since 2002 i think. and i regularly appear on john hannity show. i have a regular slot on wednesday nights that i've a regular slot with my friends at fox and friends every thursday morning, and then i will do other shows, you know, throughout the year. but i used to guest host for the show and i no longer do it. it there. okay. third e-mail from bob jones in maryland. what can we do to expose the safe schools are, kevin jennies, as a danger he is to the children of this country? "invasion" he is one of the czars about about in my column that is now the lead story on my

website. and it has largely been the conservative blogosphere, social conservatives and alternative media talk radio who have given extensive scrutiny to the curriculum to and reading material that kevin jennings group he founded called glisan has put out there over the years. and it's very troublesome that somebody who operates under the monocle of schools are would advocate very age inappropriate sexually explicit material. and i both say anything more than that. you can do a search on my website for his name or just google it. jim hoffa who blogs at gateway pundit at first things which is a catholic blog, and my site, and a number of others have reprinted tons and tons of this material. and/or other investigative

bloggers who scrutinized it as well. the latest statement from the obama administration in response to criticism came earlier this year before much of that curriculum matter was really scrutinized. arne duncan was the education secretary said that he stood by kevin jennings that the question now is what is the response to this new information? there was a real stonewall when it comes to questioning this administration's staff choices. we saw that during the van jones episode. we saw that so many mainstream reporters either deliberately or not refuse to cover a the scandals involving the public statements, the actions of a lot of these czars. and it's not just one. ofean, there are a dozen of

them in the book who have very shady, ethical background. or have backgrounds that call into question their ability to do their jobs now. credibly and with the public trust. >> host: next goal is from fayetteville north jalandhar. please go ahead commack high, michelle. >> guest: hi. >> caller: i'm a 27 year-old mother, i am working in fayetteville. [inaudible] my question is have you noticed a pattern and physically how should the obama administration deal with the possibility of preventing from discriminating against the emigrants, although

we know that we continue to screen and have a screening process. but how do we prevent from discriminating, i guess, then into the u.s.? >> guest: first of all, i don't think that discrimination in and of itself is a bad thing. i think we need to be discriminating about who we let into the country. and i talked door with the state department and regulations that already exist that are meant to protect us, that have a national security component involved in the process of handing out student visas, business visas, tourist visas. and we're not supposed to give these temporary visas out the people who might be intending from the very beginning to break those regulations, and to stay here beyond the stated amount of time on the visa, or to do

something, other than what the visa is issued for. and you know, there are certain parts of the world where governments have been very friendly to jihadists, and this obviously -- you don't have to guess, it includes places like saudi arabia that sent us 15 of the 19 hijackers. it obviously include yemen, which is the operating base for a.q. ap and the plays that trained the crotch bomber. and so yes, we need to be very discriminating about handing out future temporary visas to people from those places. we shut down the visa express program after 9/11. which have never had it in first place. it was a means of expediting the visa process and skipping all the steps as a way of pandering to the saudi government. and that is a problem that the bush administration had in which i've been very vocal about.

and the obama administration now obviously. i criticized the bush administration for reopening up a visa plan to give visas to student pilots after september 11. this sounds like an onion parody. were getting more student hyla visas, hello? wakeup. in terms of discriminating against immigrants, i understand what she's saying, and i'm very concerned. it was one of the motivating factors of writing "invasion" that we are punishing people who want to come here to do good. and what we need to do is reward people who follow the laws and who are getting in line and doing it the right way. and punish people are doing it the wrong way. and that means cracking down on these over stayers. this is sort of a hidden component of our immigration lapses, that we have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people that we cannot find. and so instead of overloading

the system with a massive amount of illegal immigrants who would be amnestied blanket through these proposals that the democrats have now, we have to be showing up and clearing the backlog that we already have. and i've heard from many, many families over the years who have relatives or friends overseas who have applied the right way, and they have been waiting two or five or 10 years to get their visa applications approved. we still have yet to clear those backlogs. and then, you know, in terms of being discriminated we have this whole problem of these criminal illegal aliens and deportation taoiseach is. this was a problem discovered after september 11, that we had 400,000 deportation evaders. these are people who had overstayed their visas or come across the border illegally, come to the attention of the fed, been ordered deported by federal judges, unicom the immigration courts.

and then pretty much given, you know, a blank check to run off and disappear. and they haven't been able to track and. shouldn't that be a priority? i think that's the problem with this system, is not prioritizing, not prioritizing who should get in, who's visas applications should be approved in an expedited manner, and who should be kicked out, you know, found, monitored, kicked out and kept out. >> host: next goal for michelle malkin comes from canon city, colorado. steve, please go ahead with your question. >> caller: , how you doing today? i could talk to you for hours and hours. i've got a list of about five different things that i would like to just bring up and it will only take a second. then i got one question for you at the end. california, we are missing 60000 jobs because a stupid little fish which is a big breadbasket of the united states. utah and oregon to shut down a bunch of our land for cattle.

as a matter fact, california is getting there carrots from china, and utah they're getting their potatoes, which i do is just up the finger, but they are getting their potatoes from china. salazar, he came down here and changed -- he shut down a bunch of our oil rigs because they're too close to our parks. we we went from a 50 to 250,000-dollar per but here in colorado. >> host: steve, why don't you go to your question? >> caller: okay. i think it's a big deal that our government has been working on this for a while. also, just one real quick question for you. okay, if it doesn't make any difference if they were republican or democrat, do you think they have a better chance of being elected?

>> guest: just to the first question. hopefully, i'm getting at the thrust of what he's talking about. but i think in all the discussion about creating jobs and jobs program, that there is very little attention paid to the jobs that government has destroyed. and i think he mentioned, i think he was referring to the central valley, where there's been a huge artificially created drought. and its environmental regulatory excess that has created this artificial problem and has put so many farmers and ranchers out of work. and it's unfortunate that at these job summit, which are essentially dog and pony shows for all of obama's patrons and special interest on the left, unions and all of his cronies, that you do not hear that voice at these job summits and is.

we always talk about what government can do to create jobs, but we never talk about what government is doing to destroy them. on the second point, i absolutely agree, that the theme of corruption is going to be a big presence in the 2010 and 2012 election. and i chose that phrase for a purpose because it was a phrase that howard dean and nancy pelosi used very effectively to defeat the republicans in the midterm. and in many cases, the charge was deserved. there was and is corruption in the republican party, when government grows, corruption blows. that's one of the operating mantras of culture of corruption. and i said that until the republicans clean their own house than not going to be able to win on this issue against democrats. having said that, i think we've seen already that there is huge

residents of this issue among independents, and not just the far right or the right wing. we talk about chris dodd and his, in connecticut. i think this is an issue that's going to hang over a lot of incumbents. you know, especially over the last month, you saw that there was great outrage at the payoffs in the bribery that accompanied the health care debate on the senate side. you see it with ben nelson, who is now being joked about from the batman movies. there are now posts of him in rural areas of nebraska that has stuck by him, you know, that he had helped immensely with federal subsidy, etc. etc., who were livid at what he did to sell out his voters for voting for the bill. and then there's just -- there

are many, many folks on the hill who are in trouble, who are under investigation by the house ethics committee's. you got charlie rangel and his tax problems. maxine waters, the sanchez sisters in california. i could do a whole encyclopedia series on corruption. . . michelle, thanks for being here and answering our questions. i'd like to go back to the very first question that you got about which party has done more for the american people and i liked your answer but i wish you would go into some examples. it seems like the conservatives and republicans have a hard time articulating this. and there's so many examples -- the gentleman brought up unions. unions -- everything that it's tied to are going out of business, airlines, car

companies, teacher unions. new york is spending billions of dollars that put teachers into rubber rooms because they can't fire them. the economies of michigan and california, all the schools that are complete disasters have been dominated by democrats. it seems like democrats, but unconstitutional noble ideas that should be in the private or charities and they all turn into failures to wear like massachusetts you have to be rich or very very poor to get government subsidies because the middle class can't afford to pay the taxes there. >> guest: and with regard to unions, i devoted a whole chapter in it "culture of corruption" to the service employees international union and i think there is no better example of their rhetoric of help in the working-class people versus the reality of a blinding the leaders pockets and a self

aggrandizement of their political power than the su. upo $80 million of rank-and-file members of deuce to get to barack obama and democrats elected in the last election cycle and what have they got for it? well, and eastern, the president, it is the most frequent visitor to the white house in quite a partier on the white house scene. but it's certainly hasn't approved -- improved the plight of the average american worker and now what we're seeing is a huge backlash against the corruption at the service employees international union, another big label organization. they don't want to be represented by unions. i applaud the case in washington state for health care workers there have rejected union representation by the seiu. these big label organizations are desperate to put more

members on their roles. they're doing out there pushing amnesty and in another case trying a big power grab in the home health care sector and even there they are being rejected by those that they purport to help and i reported over the last several months that home health care workers in illinois feedback and effort by the seiu and other unions to corral them into their organizations. on and i think there is a basic theme of over the years, the caller did a good job of it scoping over the history. and unfortunately you are not seeing a lot of mainstream media coverage of that and i think there should be more. we now have a race in massachusetts, there's a special election for ted kennedy's seat on jennifer 19th, and the

democrats' candidate is the attorney general marissa co clay, who is extremely tidy in to the seiu and obviously a reliable vote for the care bill and scott brown who was not getting a lot of national gop support has called her out for her alliance with the seiu thugs and is getting a lot of grassroots support and support on-line for candidacy and that's going to watch and the next several weeks this rack we have an hour and a half two go with in depth with michelle malkin and we will take a break here and show you a speech she gave several years ago on her book, "in defense of internment". the remember speaking in berkeley? >> guest: i shall never forget, peter. in the home of the free-speech movement are about 200 rabble-rousers' who spent the entire 45 minutes that i lecture outside of the doris beating

down the door shouting, shame, shame at me try to drown my speech at me and your cameras were there in some of her favorite authors and and be back live to take your calls. >> thank-you, and delighted to be here at the home of this free speech movement. i don't know of the cameras can pick it up but there are a lot of students outside, a lot of demonstrators who would like nothing more than to drown out what i have to say and my question to them and my question to you upon hearing what i say is, what are they afraid of? i have ideas that are on popular. berkeley is a place that is renowned for accepting the expression of unpopular ideas and i'm glad and i thank you in and demands for the opportunity to have a civil and civilized discussion about some of the most important issues of our day. what the proper balance of civil

liberties and national security is in our post sept. 11th world. i'd like to thank the berkeley college republicans for organizing this event and particular of the president's andrea irvin who unfortunately could be here today. [applause] she is actually in class. i would actually like to single out others instrumental in organizing things here. [applause] a number of end --. a number of reporters have asked me why i chose berkeley, why i came to berkeley and as i mentioned in this is the home of free speech and i am not want to put myself in a bubble and only preach to the choir. i think it's very important for students today, people who are going to be making the decisions

about what our homeland security policies are in the future, to make sure that there are properly educated not only about the past but about the presence in the future. , it also happens that i have a lot of ties to berkeley. i have family members in the audience and i just want to thank them for coming out, my in-laws and brother, thank you for your support. and i spent a wonderful summer here what i was an undergraduate at overland, i came out here and did research. i was an assistant to a wonderful professor, the late karen will cost you. he was a paradigm of what a professor should be in an institution of higher learning and one of the things i learned was incredibly valuable is that we should never accept the official orthodoxy or the official line from the south designated experts. the book that i worked on with aaron which was published, but

is it true, which dealt with supposedly and debatable topics with regard to environmental regulation and i revisited the love canal a debacle, something subtle and was accepted that this was an environmental disaster. all the scientists made claims that simply weren't true and aaron taught me and many other undergraduates who worked on the book that ordinary citizens, the way people, students who don't have expertise or credentials are capable of coming to judgments and to assessing that evidence for themselves and it's a theme that i think undergraduates' -- thunderbirds my own book. on not a credentialed historian and a lot of academics who have taken the orthodox line on the world were two internment have criticized me basically wanted to shut me out of the debate because i don't have a ph.d. in history. ironic since some of the criticisms come from people who don't have phd's in history

themselves but are on a supposedly right side of the debate. ladies and gentleman, i'm here tonight to inform you that everything you learned about the so-called japanese-american internment episode in america is wrong. why am i bringing this up now? because so many critics of the current war and terror said the dangers of repeating that quote on quote the mistakes of the past as an excuse to do nothing, to find america's present enemy. why am i bringing this up now? because the laws about the past continue to poison the current national security debate over how best to defend ourselves from terrace invasion and infiltration in the future. why now? because of taepo september 11th world we can no longer afford the indulgence of use of history as multi-cultural group therapy. japanese american and arab muslim and arab activists in washington have declared a

solidarity with each other and formed a radical alliance to undermine desperately needed security measures such as nationality profiling and airports, religious profiling of muslim clerics working in prisons, monitoring of mosques, improve the screening and tracking of foreign visitors from high-risk countries, stronger immigration enforcement, and detention of enemy combatants in suspected terrorists. i start from a politically incorrect premise in a time of war the survival of the nation comes first. civil liberties are not always sector sank and the unalienable rights better guarantee than in reticulated in the decorous seven appended do not appear in a random of happiness

cannot be secured and protected without securing an protecting life.

>> host: michelle malkin, why the adventures of huckleberry finn as one of your favorite books? >> guest: it's the quintessential american novel and it was the first piece of literature that really spoke to me. i read it in fourth grade, i went to a public elementary school in south jersey, and the narrative, the writing, the story has stuck with me from fourth grade. unfortunately, in the instant news business there's not a lot of time that i have a particularly in blogging to spend on the art and craft of writing and so when people ask me what would you like to do next, and eventually i would like to write fiction.

i have written for nonfiction books, a couple of them political, polemical books. one that delved more into history. and so at some point in my life i would like to do that and i would like to write a novel at some point. >> host: what is in your head to right? >> guest: i look at oprah winfrey and the oprah winfrey book club and i think about how conservatives have done a great job of making inroads in nonfiction. but i think there's definitely more room for conservative novelists and certainly on social issues and i think that there is a rich opportunity for a pro-life novel to be written. so who knows? >> host: have you been invited on oprah winfrey? >> guest: never have and never will, not now since she is quitting and fortunately. but i've had opportunities over the years to go on and many mainstream news shows which is

always been quite a check. i did in the view when i came out with cold sure -- "culture of corruption" during the summer and that was a while the experience and has become a viral video on youtube actually. i was surprised at how little in the way of substance these women had in response to my book. i think that a lot of my readers and fans enjoyed it because i was able to out talk to both the joy and whoopi goldberg which not a lot of people are able to do. >> host: what kind of questions did they ask you? >> guest: they had general questions about i think the one that stood out most was joyce question comparing the bush administration and the obama administration and in the end i think what was telling was that by the end of the segment they were arguing about whether the obama administration was

corrupt, but how corrupt they were. and i think at that point you won the argument. there is so much evidence that i can piled in the book that if you're not arguing with strawmen and the myth of a me, that there's really not much to say other than, yes, it is business as usual in washington. but that is an accomplishment to get to that point. and the only substantive criticism there had been from the book whether the view, women or anybody else in the mainstream was that it is too early to tell. no, it wasn't because if you look at the people that he brought with him and if you have looked at the decisions he had made between january and july when the book came out, there was plenty of evidence that pointed to the fact that this guy was going to play hardball chicago way because that's the waat always played the.

>> host: here's a publication that i wanted to do an interview of you and here's your response to them and -- no respect to you or your august publication of which my beloved in wallace this is on your website, an e-mail you sent to new yorker editor. >> guest: yes, that's right. they had a reporter who had handed me for several weeks to try and get a profile done and if i had had any idea of confidence that it would have been a rare profile i would have done it's. i've done mainstream profiles. iditarod with howard kurtz, washington post, and one more recently this summer with lloyd

grove for the daily beast. and so i'm not unwilling, completely unwilling to talk to a mainstream media. but in this case i had seen how they treated past conservatives and they do treat them in this anthropological matter where we are the apes and a profile us for their amusement other liberal creators. and you know, when i have time to sit down and do something like that in time to take the effort to turn it around, maybe i would do to put in this case not. and it's nice to have -- it's nice to be able to say no and there are more times a. another missive that somehow since we are a publicity house when, in fact, i have been very selective and i think this is true of a lot of conservatives in public life. i've heard a rush limbaugh's talk about this, that they say no often more often than yes and in my case it's also true.

>> host: michelle malkin which you do your fox news hits or broadcast, do you do from your home or studio in colorado springs? >> guest: and have a bureau in denver some most often you'll see me sitting in front of the denver backdrop of the mountains in the back and was interesting is that a lot of people are not really paying attention. they still think i am in washington d.c. for all intents and purposes. but i go to denver about once or twice a week and occasionally i can do it from colorado springs, there's a studio where i can do it. and the miracle of being mobile is that i'm as much in touch for internet and e-mail and picking up the phone with sources here than when i lived in the beltway area. >> host: what is your husband do? >> guest: well, he is by training and health economist.

but by daily living stay at home dad. we have a nine year-old daughter and a six year-old son. >> host: veronica. >> guest: jd. our lives revolve around them. they are my world and everything i do, my riding, the thrust of my passion for the things i care about is because of our children. we have moved out to colorado to give them a healthier better life which they now have and we are very appreciative for. and i've dedicated many of the books and mentioned my husband and my kids and pretty much every single book. >> host: according to nielsen books use all over 500,000 books. has a ready-made to wealthy? >> guest: it has given us a good life for certain. one of the wonders and i always joke about this when i'm on

college campuses, it's an amazing thing about this country that a little brown skin the girl can make a living in mouthing off on the internet in columns and in books and i cherish every single day, the first amendment rights i have, and i try to maintain them not only for myself but for everyone else out there who would like to make a living as i do. and the amazing thing about the internet, out egalitarian it has made my business. there are no barriers to entry. there used to be a very type of atmosphere like this i have in my home office a shadowbox of all of the rejections that i got earlier in my career. from cindy kids, from newspapers, from editors. their editors that wouldn't give me the time of day when i submitted op-ed pieces so i share that frustration is that so many of my readers had in

trying to get their word out. you know, when a reader can get a letter to the editor published, if that happened 10 years ago they had no outlet and now the can start a blog on any free applaud the site or put it on an online site and they are just as capable as those of us who are in the business of getting their ideas out there. it's an incredible incredible development. >> host: (202)737-0002, mountain and pacific time sons, booktv as c-span.org, a twittered.com/booktv is our twitter address, ron in richmond virginia you are on with michelle malkin. please go ahead with your question. >> caller: okay, three questions. how do you define your conservatism so high on your

reading list that i guess it's summer in their, edmund burke, russell kirk, reactionary legislators. it was her brand of conservatism? and have you take this conservative view -- how would it shape of america's economic policy going forward in the word addresses and the losses of our economy that have come from the pursuit of postindustrial war service economy which actually goes back two practically the '60s? and certainly in the '70s. and this is, indeed, a problem, it's been committed by crazy things in financial services which was driven by the economy moving over there but if you look at a map you'll see luxembourg and the united states are geographically different. luxembourg is a successful post

industrial economy, it doesn't >> host: what is your question? >> caller: third question, take carjack an amendment with universal right to work long and enforcement against management or yancey and how will that apply? >> host: thank you. michelle malkin. >> guest: let me tackle what i can. the -- i think the easiest way to define me would be someone who believes in a strong national defense, low taxes, of limited government, and limited as we can make it so that people are able to pursue happiness and a way of living without the big hand of government getting in the way. and i think that a lot of the he

mentioned high-tech, and you had asked me to some of my favorite authors and thinkers were in a mention it, sold as a big influence and i think the basic idea of of rejecting the fatal conceit of the notion that government bureaucrats know better than individuals or the market, what's best for people, and the rejection of what thomas sold called the vision of the anointed, the idea that there is this elite class that should rule over everyone else and their vision and intentions matter more than empirical evidence and individual desires. and that somehow we should ignore the outcome and the consequences of the left field of vision. i completely reject that.

i think that in terms of a car jack and the big labor pushed for that you have to look again at not just add to the rhetoric at protecting workers but the reality that these and big labor efforts are nothing more than a massive political power grab and that it is workers states that have been fallen by the wayside in. >>ost: e-mail. effective protests from the tea party movement reached a crescendo in august, september 09 and have since become less bellicose. a large majority of tea party participants were seniors protesting against any substantive changes to medicare. once the healthcare bill is completed in the next couple months do you expect the tea party movement to lose a substantial number of members or for its protest to lose their effort and volume? >> guest: i guess i would question the premise of the e-mail. because all those seniors did

travelogue of the town hall protest i would push that crescendo forward. there was a huge mass of protests in d.c. just last month in the wake of all of these backroom deals that were being done and i think the broadening of those protests to include independence and some democrats who were disgusted with business as usual is going to swell the movement even more. i also think the movement is evolving and it was never intended to be just public demonstrations and sit in san such. the real story is behind the scenes for many of these local chapters and state organizations are now grooming people for political office. what is especially newsworthy is the fact that these are completely independent newcomers into the political process who

are not tied to the gop establishment. and i think that is where the real hope and change lies, it lies with these people who are going to inject completely new blood into washington who will not beholden to the capitulation ist wing of the republican party. >> host: a lot of criticism of you because of this photo. a quota with you and i protestor holding a sign that says obama and there is a nazi symbol there because of unhinged and you criticizing the bush equal hitler posters. >> guest: right. >> host: this was in "vanity fair". >> guest:nay in a local colorado left-wing website which apparently was covering me during one of the earliest tax revolt protests. this happen and -- it was in the weekend before the stimulus law was passed -- no, the day of

that obama signed the stimulus in denver. and i had come to speak. i have normally done this, this was new for me to do this political activism in and getting involved in i had coverage some of the early protests before they were called tea parties and i actually brought to a roasted pig to the event. after i spoke there was a massive rush of people who wanted to talk and meet me and give me materials and this guy shows up and i had no idea what he was holding. immediately which is what was really curious, immediately these left-wing websites turn around and said, michelle malkin endorses the use of a nazi imagery. she is a hypocrite and a not a lover, etc. etc.. ..

propaganda to paint all of the tax revolters as somehow, you know, fascistic or racists. .... >> and now all of a sudden they are manufacturing outrage about this. is to borrow what the previous caller said about the book, that

says more about them than it does about me. >> host: much in jackson whaley. thanks for holding. you are on with michelle malkin. please go ahead. >> caller: happy new year to both of you. you know, michelle, i'm a true liberal. i don't judge you by your skin color or your background, or you're a female. i judge you by your mindset and your philosophy you know, you can go and talk about corruption but never think about why was the bin laden family allowed to fly out of the country right after 9/11. about the only people allowed to fly out of this country. why did bush allow malan to get out of bora bora? why do you investigate cheney when he had halliburton dealing with iran. >> host: what do you think the answer is why to those questions

is? >> caller: because she doesn't investigate nobody come her, hannity. nobody seems to back up -- holding hands with the king of saudi arabia. at the 19th they hit our towers, nobody brings that up. but when obama bows down to the president of japan, there's a big to do about it. i just think that the conservative mindset is only looking out against the liberal mind, that doesn't see any negativity in the conservative actions. >> host: got the point. thanks. >> guest: if he had listened over the last hour and half, he would have heard me criticizing the bush administration state department for creating these express program. he would have heard me criticizing the bush administration for reopening up a student pilot visa program for saudi's. and actually, if he would go to

my website and search for bush, saudi, you will see many, many posts over the years criticizing bush for literally and figurativelyding hands with the saudi regime. i criticized the bush state department andar for what i call their demi- attitude towards jihad is. and when i criticized barack obama for bowing to the saudi's, i linked back to my post criticizing bush for doing the same. so you know, i think this underscores a point i've made about my critics ignoring, you know, massive amounts of written and published evidence that i criticized both sides. but it's interesting because there are very few honest liberals, particularly in the public square, who has acknowledged what i've written in culture of corruption. it's back to the nature, what about bush, what about

halliburton, what about cheney? they are not in office anymore and i think it is a denial and distraction method, maybe a method of coping for those people to keep going back to the bush years, when it's time to start dealing with the corruption and the selectiveness of the current administration towards jihad a friendly regime. >> host: matthey in kansas city, missouri, please go ahead with a question for michelle malkin. >> caller: hi, michelle. i'm 14 years old, and i am a conservative. i wanted to know if you think the views of conservatives and liberals views will change the views of religion in the face of god, when my generation grows up. >> host: matthew, could you tell us why you're a conservative and tell us a little bit about yourself. >> caller: well, conservative is just common sense. i mean, you know, like i

remember watching -- listening to rush limbaugh, and him talking to a five year old girls sang about the guy who was homeless. and i was just thinking, instead of just getting the money for us -- he worked for himself. that's what i first started thinking of conservatism and why i should be a conservative. >> host: and you go to public or private school? >> caller: i go to a public school. >> host: how many other classmates think share your politics? >> caller: very few. i was ridiculed last year for supporting john mccain and sarah palin with the election. i was ridiculed. i was hurt physically, emotionally, because less liberal kids told the

administration there at the school that i said that i was going to assassinate the president, which was a lot. and they said i was part of the kkk, of course, another lie. they made up his life to make me get in trouble. >> host: all right. thanks, matthew. >> guest: well, thank you for standing up for your views, and it's tough to be that young and be unorthodox in the face of, you know, the left wing political establishment which has dominated obviously, schools and public education. and has been a theme of my blog over the last year or two, the ways in which the left and the armies are using the public school classrooms to indoctrinate the next generation of obama type community organizers and political activists.

i think it's very worrisome, the extent of that and doctor nation, which has taken the form of these obama cult worship of videos which you can find by the dozen on youtube, to the e-mails i get from upset parents on a weekly basis. over the invasion of obama style propaganda in the schools, and much more of it subsidized by the national service act, $6 billion legislation that i talked about. i think his original question had something to do with the role of religion and the parties, not quite sure he what he was getting at there. unless he was trying to figure out how is it that this divided country, you know, can unite over religion issues.

and i guess the thing i would say about that is, you know, you have areas where social liberals and evangelical christians do have common ground. and we mention that in the first half of the program. with the human rights issues, what's going on in iran and where you look at the persecution of christians around the world, particularly in muslim dominated countries, even in iraq where christian churches are having a lot of trouble surviving. and then domestically, obviously you're not going to get much agreement on things like the same-sex marriages issue across the state. but you know, outside of the tough world of the political realm, there is common ground, particularly on something like abortion where you have liberal women and conservative women who care about the fate of women and their babies.

and support for things like crisis pregnancy centers, which is a big issue for me, and finding ways outside of that, political realm, to get women the help they need. there is some room. >> host: who are the three most likely republicans you think will tryo run against president obama? who are the three republicans you would like to see one. same tweet from kathy rogers, michelle, who do you believe can be brought obama in 2012? >> guest: you know, in some ways it's a short amount of time before 2012, and a long amount of time. and i think one of the problems with the washington pundit talk of is they think they know everything. who knew that obscure illinois state legislator could have emerged from the scene and been sitting in the white house

today? so although there are names out there that have been anted about and we know from all the polls, mike huckabee and mitt romney, tim pawlenty now coming into his own, as well as sarah palin always there, as a present. i have no idea. i have no idea who it could be. maybe there's some state legislator out there on the same sort of experience playing as barack obama who could emerge. and then bobby jindal of course is also among that list of front runners mention. >> host: who do you like? >> guest: i like bobby jindal. i've known him personally for the last couple of years, and i think that he's doing an amazing job as an administrator of the state that's gone through a lot. that's gone through hell,

literally. and he has a lot of experience in many domestic policy areas that were at the forefront, you know, policy debates right now, whether it's health care, fighting corruption, ethics reform. and he emerged as a quote unquote rock star, or up-and-coming rock star. and i think it's a good thing after he gave the response last year to the president, the january address, that he had sort of come down a notch. i think has been able to manage expectations that i think that's a mistake unto me of the gop front runners, that they embrace this rockstar status, and then an inevitably disappoint. always good to manage. >> host: what about sarah palin? >> guest: i like her. i like her a lot. and i have been very open about my admiration for her. for her courage, for her

stallworth, and the way she has handled her unhinged detractors over the last couple of years. i got to see her in colorado springs when she came through on her book tour. i think she is an amazing woman with an amazing support with family and it's been surprised that she has inspired so much loyalty and passion and fervor. and just an anecdotal evidence on my block on my neighborhood in colorado springs, it wasn't until she announced the vice president that the signs of support, literally came out on the lawn for people. and i've gone through many of the same things that she's gone through in terms of the attacks, what they called palin derangement syndrome, over the last couple of years, invasion of privacy against her family, and just really disgusting and vile attacks, in many cases among other liberal women, which

i find really remarkable. the question is whether public office is the right and proper role for her. and i don't think that she has decided, there's a sierra packed out there and she's left open the possibility i know on her own book tour that she's not ruled it out. but thanks to the internet, thanks to facebook, where she primarily communicates, you know, she's able to carve out a very influential role as a public conservative without having to hold office. >> host: did you read her book? >> guest: i certainly did. one of the things that bothered me before i read the book was a decision she had made to leave public office. i was bothered by it and i said so on my blog. i said i'd did she should have finished the job. but i think she gave a fairly effective explanation of her own

situation, her family situation, the ethics, investigations that were bogging her down. she wrote she was not a wealthy woman. sheet has not detained the steps which he could take care of her family and balance that with her job. after i read the book i have come to accept that explanation. and also, i think the subtitle of the book is an american life. i think that's what really attracts so many people to her. so this is a woman who lives life to the fullest, and loves this country. and understand what drives people outside of the beltway, and i have met some of her family members. and they are extraordinaire people. it's an extraordinary family and extraordinary american life. and if not for the unhindered as of so many american women, they would celebrate as a role model for their own daughters. >> host: were talking with michelle malkin on booktv.

nancy in norton, virginia. it's your turn. >> caller: hi. i'm a liberal but i think you and i agree on more than we disagree on. and what you said about books and newspapers reminded me of what justice stevens wrote in nixon versus missouri. are you familiar with that case? >> guest: no. >> host: go ahead and explain it, nancy. >> caller: he wrote money is property. i'm calling about banking reform. there's a great article about that in january, they were, mother jones. i think we could agree on turning bankers. i believe the way we get to

banking reform is through campaign-finance reform, and i wonder if you are also familiar with senate bill 1497, because we really need public hearing on the consultation at the fcc. >> host: media consolidation. >> guest: there's a lot wrapped up in there. the first thing i would say is i think i agree with her that there are areas of common ground for progressives and limited government conservatives, and the financial arena is certainly one of those areas. and that's why you see both liberal democrats and libertarians collaborating on an audit of bad legislation, for example. are in the show, now some taxpayer advocates joining up

with liberal bloggers to go after these big business democrats, like chris dodd. and you see more -- more parallel critiques of the rahm emanuel's and the tim geithner's and the henry paulson's from places like rolling stone and blogs like mine. things. and, you know, the general consensus among critics on both the left and the right is that the obama financial services, financial quote unquote reform policy has built to make banks that were too big to fail even bigger. and has rewarded the enron style accounting of pain and freddie mac was even more bailout money. and so i think you'll see more of those bedfellow alliances targeting both -- both targeting

democrat politicians have enabled it. >> host: michelle malkin, a lot of people we've talked about michelle malkin.com. when people post comments, they are not always nice, is that correct? do you leave is up or take those down? >> guest: if they violate my terms of use policy, which you can see on the website, i do my best to ban commenters who cross my line, crossed the lines of those terms of you. >> host: do you support an open dialogue among people disagree with you? >> guest: there are liberal commentators on this site, and if they close registration, occasionally i've opened it up at their -- there are thousands, literally thousands of commenters between michelle malkin.com and hot air.com. we do our best to try to police the. we rely on our commenters to bring, you know, i mean, there are people who insult me on my side that i allow as long as

it's not ad hominem or libelous, defamatory or profanity labeled. because i think it's good to have that descend on the site. but you know, the issue of commenters is there are people who want to turn our website into their own chat rooms. and so this can often be a problem. it's trying to balance, you know, i love them as much free flow of dialogue as possible with maintaining some sort of control over it. >> host: you've written four books that you've sold about 500,000 hardback copies of the books, which is a huge number. can you make money on a website? can you make money twittering to $36000? >> guest: we have a viable business model for both michelle malkin.com and hot air.com.

we have address but adds on banner ads in the sidebar. we weren't able to make the video part of it, the original video production part of it viable. so part of running a successful business is evolving, and looking at what leaders want, and providing that. and so i think both sides have had a longevity that a lot of sites have not been able to maintain. and it's interesting if you look at the right side of the blogosphere and the left side of the blogosphere. much of the left aside underwritten by wealthy venture capitalist, you've got the huffington post for example, or talking posts them on, they been able to raise venture capital and stay afloat that way. they are not making profit. the way we've been able to do business is by having a very

green light operation. it is run by two ed morrison wha great blog, and an anonymous blogger at hotair.com. in these two guys are the hardest working guys in the blogosphere who are able to maintain, literally, almost 24 hours a day, rolling headlines, blog post, breaking news, their own investigative reporting, regional analysis that is really a go to destination for readers on the right, and the traffic there has been phenomenal. we have double the traffic that my individual site does not. and i think because it is so streamlined where able to make it and survive. >> host: how many people a month ago to michellemalkin.com? >> guest: let's see, for unique visitors, it's i think at anywhere between 400, 500,000 unique visits.

a month now. and what's interesting is that we've done comparisons of our website traffic for both sides with some of the mainstream newspapers. and you think about how deep-pocketed these institutions are, how massive their staffs are. and you know, in some cases we rival midsize newspapers websites traffic. so it's been extraordinary but it's been an extraordinary year. i think there is an increasing appetite for these alternative sources of information. i think it helps to explain the success of the websites. and then also, the sex of its road to books that today i link to a "new york times" item. there's a column called inside the list. they took a look back at the year and they found that conservative books were number one on the list for 26 weeks total, versus two weeks at number one for liberal books.

mark within whose blurb you read earlier in the show had a book called liberty and tyranny that was on the list, number one, for 11 weeks total. and yet, his book was not reviewed by "the new york times," did not get all that mainstream attention, didn't show up on the view or the today show. mine came in second for six weeks in a row and again, didn't have the times book review but i think it shows you that it's a new world that it is a new world for conservative publishing. >> host: but you do put "new york times" number one bestseller, i think you t books. does that help sell books? >> guest: and most. but i think it is a nice him in the eye to the new times at the same time. >> host: that they have never reviewed one of your books? there it is again. jennifer in mesa, arizona, u. been very patient. thank you. you are on the air with michelle

malkin commack i'm kind of nervous that i have three-point i want to talk to michelle about and just want to let her know that hillary clinton was the person i wanted to be president. i mean, i'm 62 years old. i would have loved to have seen a woman president and i think that was my last hope. but michelle, what you said, and i never realized until what the media, mainstream media did to the clinton. they made him race is that they made her look like she was -- like i'm not. that is one smart woman, and now they are touring all over her. and then my other deal is, the chicago schools. they have want us to have arne duncan in charge of all of our school systems now. you know, he was in charge at the time state senator -- state senator obama and mayor daley, if they could get something done with the chicago schools then, how are they going to get it done now?

y. has anybody looked while they were in charge how bad the system did go? and where was al sharpton, jesse jackson, when that young man was murdered, beaten to death? where's the rights on the streets? my third point is, being from arizona in a border state, there's one reason that president obama put janet napolitano, he's going to say she's a border state governor. well, she did want to secure our borders. she still doesn't. we have a shared here to get 70%, 70% votes. he is the only person that has stood up and made legal immigration by law. and now they have taken away his rights. we have them fighting is all the time. american people don't want this illegal immigration. >> host: all right, jennifer. thank you.

>> guest: let's start with the first point about hillary clinton. it's interesting. there seems to be this emein group of hillary democrats now who have found common cause with conservative obama critics on many issues. and i think it's those swing democrats who are going to join with the tea party conservative types, i think, and really change the makeup in 2010 and 2012. you know, i have my issues with hillary clinton, and i get a whole chapter on many of the shady connections and the money problems, the conflicts of interest that she has when you look at all the foreign governments and contributors to her husband's nonprofit charities, the clinton library, etc. there was an article just this

past weekend that they have disclosed, more of those donors. but that was a hard one, battle for transparency. on the second issue. >> host: arne duncan. >> guest: i completely agree with this color. that there has to be a lot more attention paid to his record in chicago, the record of failure of the chicago political establishment to give kids in that city a good and safe education. and it was very striking that the beating of the student in the chicago area happened right before the olympic bid. and i think it might have had some impact in the debate there over whether chicago could have provided a secure environment for the olympic spirit but it raises all sorts of questions about arne duncan's leadership, or lack thereof during his time as superintendent. and again, there are some

liberal and progressive critics of the chicago political establishment trying to call attention to that, but most of the mainstream media don't want to pay attention. and third, on janet napolitano record as a border state governor. yes, i followed her many efforts to sabotage enforcement of immigration laws there. and the obama justice department has pretty much waged war against that local sheriff, for doing things like being serious about deportation. >> host: mary in houston, texas. good afternoon commack thank you. michelle, i appreciate your courage, and i really appreciate you coming forward with the issue of corruption. i think it's universal issue, not liberal or conservative. the higher the corruption in our

country worse off we'll all be, liberal or conservative. my question is, first of all, i'm a straight constructionists of our constitution. i think a strict interpretation really answers most of our problems. with regard to campaign finance, bush, obama, they all parklike seals for money. and right now, what's happening is just plunder. we need single-payer system where a registered voter is the only person who can contribute. the supreme court said no corporate contributions that would lend itself to bribery. well, there comes the birth of the lobbyist, but groups campaign giving is killing the country. gets destroyed the best country in the entire world.

>> guest: justice louis brandeis said sunlight is the best. i certainly think that applies not only to the conduct of government, but also to the campaign-finance system. and if we had a more better way of disclosing these contributions then everyone would know who is getting paid for, who was in the pockets of houma, and i think that -- i just don't think you can build enough walls and keep all of the peanut butter and jelly from squishing out of the sandwich in different ways. there's no way to block that. so rather than spend all of his time and effort, you know, trying to wall that all off, just letting the money flow and letting people know where it's coming from would be, you know, the ideal way of solving this situation i think. . . this -- i think a common thing over the course of the show, there is this common ground between liberals and conservatives over wanting to fight corruption in

washington, and there are a lot of these year-end lists that come out, the most corrupt politicians, and the majority of them are democrats, and there are out a few republicans on the list, and i think we're going to see a cleaning of the news 2010 and 2012, and hopefully return to a more strict constitutionalist way of government. >> host: steve, illinois, here's his e-mail at political commentary to you find yourself wanting or needing to keep up with the joneses by making your own rhetoric that much more incendiary? in other words, in a hyper partisan political climate beer seemingly nothing is shocking anymore glenn beck calling the president a racist, do you find yourself working that much harder to shock? >> guest: this goes back to

that criticism from bill sure. no, i don't, i don't purposely make things inflammatory. i think that there are the voice of the issues in this country and if i'm guilty or spoke of anything in his of being blunt and i think that there is not enough of that kind of blindness in washington and i think that's probably why it makes what i say all the more stark or all the more seemingly inflammatory. i don't mince words and i think there's too much of that and i think the fog of in many cases political correctness that miller's issues, that to me are black-and-white, and you know, i think there is a double standard of how this worry about inflammation is applied. i mean, there's a lot of

inflammatory rhetoric that comes from the white house press office and from the obama white house the words its enemies, but nobody ever worries about them and divisiveness in the hyper partisanship that is emanating from those offices particularly as we've been talking about with how they attack the tea party activists. there was never any retraction or apology for that. if you also look at the inflammatory rhetoric against many of the republicans and particularly sarah palin or other conservative women come and look at how they talk about michelle bodman, the republican congressman from minnesota who is also very plain spoken and not apologetic about her views. in very violent disgusting sexist comments, and you never see any navel gazing about that. >> host: would you read on a

daily basis? >> guest: i consumed massive amounts of information from blogs and web sites, international web sites, the bbc i check in with. i have the did readers that i check into. i have a google de did reader that i subscribe to and obviously i go to hot air that, every morning and see what my guys arrived too. i tried to conceal information from all sides so i can't happen all the liberal blogs, the big ones and the small ones, twitter obviously is vital to my daily news gathering process. and that i like to check can on big metropolitan newspaper web sites and their local sections. i think is just an old habit i have of looking at the local section of the seattle times where i used to work in the l.a. papers and and obviously because it's such a huge theme of mine,

i keep tabs on chicago blogs and chicago press. >> host: we have about 20 minutes left with our guest, michelle malkin, who's been with us now for nearly three hours on booktv in depth. davis california, you're on the air please go ahead. >> caller: i was really curious about what michelle thinks about the bomber from yemen. i was just thinking, with all the reports that came to the department about to this guide being on the list of people to watch him how good they allow that kind of guy to come to the homeland and cause trouble? and just briefly, there is a lot of pain pawning about what curriculum is in the schools and

staff. but i'm thinking because -- i'm thinking is that we are trying to stifle the kind of support may give to education, been worried about corruption and big government because there are big cats all over, all programs are being cut in california in the schools and the only thing that america can do at this crucial time is education. >> guest: we talked a lot about this, the visa process and have the state apartments failed to keep the garage bomber from getting a visa. but obviously the big debate in washington over the last weekend over the next several weeks will be over the failure of these watch list to protect us. he was on one of the tide of watch lists which has some i

believe 400,000 people. [laughter] and he was able to fly despite britain's nine him a visa. what could these watch lists of people are doing is putting them on a list and not actually watching them in doing anything about it? you have to be connecting the dots. you have to do more than just have a static lists that nobody's doing anything about, which again in through lending itself to natural questions about the civil-rights absolutist we don't want the list compiled and don't want the lists acted upon. there is a separate question about the danger that yemen has post to us and not just over the last month obviously but over the last many many years and one of the last congress of the year i wrote was about the revolving door for many of these yemeni based jihad said. the yemeni government unfortunately has been very lax

about monitoring known jihad and that includes the uss: mastermind who is now freeer being convicted and sentenced to death was essentially given an amnesty by then yemen government. now we are pouring tens of millions of dollars into anti-terrorism aid to give to this same government that has shown such a lacks have. and then, of course, the big related to bid is going to be over guantanamo bay because bbc news reported late last month that two of the many al qaeda leaders had actually been released from gitmo. so there debate about gitmo is now at the forefront. >> david allyson the suites, do we conservatives have a chance for sarah peale and going with a third party? >> guest: can now, here's what i've said about third-party site. in the new york 23 race i was

very grateful for the existence of the conservative party as a check and balance on the republican party and as long as we have these committed free-market limited government third-party entities that can work to make republicans pay more than lip service to limit government, i think it's a good thing. you know, we have experience with ross perot in the past and pat buchanan and third parties have always been spoilers in that sense. but for right now for my purposes i am working toward holding the republican party speak to their own fire and working within the party to bring it back. >> host: dan and cleary tweet, which left of center columnist or bloggers to your read regularly if any? >> guest: i read all of "the new york times" columnist online and i read them to see what is on their radar screen and also

to provide a check and balance on them and i'll give a specific example. there was a very incendiary, that was written by nicholas christophorous early last year and he used it as a poster board -- a poster boy posters situation for the healthcare takeover bell and he told the plight of one john broadbent there was apparently a yawn oregon man suffering from a condition called and he mingy on in cranial issue, a neurological problem. and he asserted that this young man was unable to get health insurance and unable to get any treatment from a doctor and he railed against joe lieberman in particular at the time who have been lenient toward voting

against the healthcare plan. basically accusing politicians who opposed socialized medicine of allowing patients like this john to die. well, i down over the last year that many of these anecdotes for health care takeover have not panned out and this was one of them. there were a lot of red flags in the peace. for one thing nicholas christophorous, of course, is a pulitzer prize-winning columnist and author celebrated by the likes of oprah winfrey, he had asserted that this was a case for government health care. expansion. when a guy already have health insurance. i went and called out and discover that not only did he have health coverage under the zero were again in state medicaid plan, but also that he had been treated by some of the best neurologists in the state. so the entire premise of this

piece was wrong, not to mention the fact that nicholas, that what is being passed now is fine to make things better when, in fact, it would cut medicaid reimbursement selling it would -- so it would foment more of the problem then he says he's trying to fix. anyway, i call attention to it and then york times on lisbon said he would look into but there has been nothing. radio silence on that. at least he has been called up publicly and i even to we did it end treated him directly who never responded to me directly about it. but this is what i'm talking about, the level a playing field and the sort of egalitarian nature of the internet. there is alternative information out there in the one who wants to find at. >> host: next call for michelle malkin, done in boston, go ahead. >> caller: hello, michelle. it is pretty much self evident

that you have a strong antipathy toward a the attitude in particular and is suggested that the reason is that your husband, jesse, is a strong zionist chew and that is the reason for its. my question to you is that anything that israel has done that has disturbed gimcracks. >> guest: i find this phone call disturbing. it is news to me that my husband is a zionist do. but it is not used to mean that a caller like this would assume that my views about to profiling or my books or my riding on jihad and a war on terror are somehow dictated by my husband's imaginary views, but i had a deal to with this over the years and somehow i am just putting

from isai in this jewish husband and i imagine he is cracking up right now at home. if he is watching this. obviously, of course, it is a diggs mirror that the caller just leveled, that i have some problems at all with muslims in general when i don't. i have a big problem with specific muslims who are waging war on the infidels in the u.s. and across the country and obviously it is real. in israel. over the use you can see this on my blogged, i have made very clear that i have no animus towards any religious group or ethnicity in general in some kind of blanket manner and during the 2006 mahomet cartoonist debacle, i made it very strong and tends to support outspoken muslim newspaper

editors, columnists, journalists who have spoken out at about the war that was being waged the danish cartoonist and newspaper expressing views about this lot. >> host: in fact, on the back of a "unhinged" is one of her endorsements, this is what happens when you send a yellow woman to do a white man's job. just for the caller, if you like more information on that michelle malkin and some of the e-mail's that she has received over the years, "unhinged" repoire and several of them so several dozen i would say sheila in green river, wyoming, go ahead with your question, i am a great fan of michelle. i just wanted to let you know that i live in in that state so well, to the west. >> guest: thank you. >> caller: i wanted to comment a little bit on the butch in jackson and where i live and we are well and gas industry, but

my sons worked there, that's how we make our living in this part of the state. jackson is tourism in the only thing that makes them survive is tourism peer down with our gas and oil and gives their tourists there so i don't understand the hatred there. >> host: where are you going with this? we know you were talking about but to call an earlier. >> caller: , global warming. all of that bs. >> host: michelle malkin, would you like to comment on climate change in current legislation? >> guest: welcome to another of the anger reported stories of the year, of course, at least domestically has been the climate gate e-mail scandal. and i think it is actually having a huge impact on the democrats pushed to pass the cap and trade bill and i think it's

fine to be essentially stymied in should be. because this administration, and they truly believed in integrity in science it would have stopped time ago. >> host: here's another e-mail. why are you so against civil rights for minorities and you yourself are an asian? don't you have any sympathy for your own people? >> guest: well, here redoubt. when i talked about the left treating minority conservatives as traders, that's a fairly stark example of the rhetoric that you get. i'm not against civil rights for minorities neither the republican party that persuaded enforceable rights legislation and there are many democrats who opposed it. when i am against is the kind of government driven a paternalism that claims to help minorities when, in fact, it does nothing

about that -- it does nothing whatsoever. i oppose government which has preferences, i always have weather in hiring or education. i covered the the debates in california in washington state to pass initiatives that abolish government preferences and is surpassed both by large margins of independents, democrats and republicans who also opposed the kind of preferential treatment and opposed to racism and all of its forms. >> host: what is your report you have written? >> guest: it's hard to say. "unhinged", i was able to let my hair down and i really have fun without but. it had more of obviously a sense of fun and playfulness, you can tell just from the cover, and i cover illustration was done by a fabulous artist. does a lot of work and the

national review. i just laugh when i look a tad gawky which was inspired and. want in the sense of interment was the least amount of books however i consider it probably the most important concern made the most have a in terms of history and really reaching outside of the normal kind of writing that i didn't. "invasion" will always have a special place in my heart, the first book i had ever written. inspired after the september 11th aftermath. and so really got me on my way towards, the first book that speed to my publisher published, they published all of my books and have been extremely supportive over the years. and then "culture of corrupt obviously the most commercially successful. also i think the most active

list of any of the books that i have written because what i have told people across the country as i got on the book tour is i don't want this to be a book that just sits on a shelf. this is information to be used and people are. and it is finding relevance pretty much every day of week with some new story involving corruption of one of the team obama members. >> host: after your first book did regnery come to you or did you go to them? >> guest: here's how the process when and it's an interesting story. but when i first came up with the idea of a speaker, i didn't know anybody, had no established washingtonof the conservatives scene. but i have started writing syndicated columns or creators syndicate which has been my civic it ever since i got the start as a columnist. david limbaugh had just started up fare as well. so we were sort of -- we became

friendly and exchange congratulations in e-mail's and he had come up with one of his first books with regnery sa said it would you know anybody at regnery would be interested in taking a look at my book proposal. he passed it on, they liked the idea and it went from there. the second book i pitched was in the "in defense of internment" and they were behind add and "unhinged" and "culture of corruption" peering at had a couple of other ideas that didn't go anywhere and a couple ideas still germinating, but i have been very fortunate and blessed to be involved with so many good people in the conservative movement. >> host: who are some of your best friends in the media? >> guest: you know, i would have to say and, of course, the news about rush limbaugh getting hospitalized of the weekend really shook me and i am glad that he is up hang.

i don't know him all that personal way, but he has been a huge figure over the course of my development as a young conservative, he's really one of the first popular conservative figures that i never heard of aaron started listening to him on my college campus and then when i were to the daily news he read one of my columns, i will never forget it. and, i had written on culture during the menendez murder trial, i don't know of your member this but i'm such a news junkie that i will never forget that when he did this, and he read my peace because when i was concerned about in that case was the defense lawyer who tried to make these cold-blooded murderers look like it sounds. >> host: leslie abramson. >> guest: thank you. and the supplication of the culture, of course, has taken

over and calcify in a loss of nine of the years and it's something i've always rejected, the victim mentality. you see it play out in some ways, you see a play out with the war and terror with many jihad playing it out and looking at etc. but there is a huge thrill when he ran that, read my column over the airwaves and, of course, and at a huge amount of response in return and realized, wow, the influence and scope of rush and his longevity. if you think about it. i have many folks that i admire and have followed me in reciprocated and we talked about some of the issues. the people that have been so generous with their endorsements, people like mark stein and mark within, and and that fox, sean hannity has been a huge health and supporter and friend, and a kindred spirits over the years.

and other close friends that i have are the folks in the blogosphere and what's amazing is many of these people i've ever met in person and probably never will. six trenary when like minds can get together in that way over bits and bytes. occasionally i will meet pope see pac and gatherings and it's nice to been a real flesh and blood handed to a phase into an e-mail address. >> host: have you ever written anything that you regret? >> guest: now. i have not and i think that is a function of having a solid set of beliefs and deliberations before i hit the published by an office send button to the columns. i am extremely proud of all the books i have written and with regard to blogging, the thing about the blogosphere is you have to have transparency and in

some cases when you're throwing breaking news it is constantly transparent the holland process and self correcting process. if i did something wrong i admit it, i fix it, but the new information out there for people to see and i know that a lot of my left is contractures will jump on one post or the other the the information turns out to be wrong and sometimes information were i have relied on a trusted source i got it wrong to warmus contributed and a lot of cases is mainstream media sources developing stories. along the way in which you have to do to your leader stressed -- readers trust is two keep an open and to constantly and more information as it comes in and then integrate that too your analysis which is one i do on a daily basis. >> host: we'll in atlanta, please go ahead with your comments were michelle malkin. please go ahead. >> caller: thanks, listening to your resources for what i

read, i went the other direction and wondered about america after i won after the war in vietnam to find out what had gone wrong and the path from american exceptionalism and the promised land and reading the founder thomas jefferson's writings which i consider to be prophetic particularly the post correspondents with john adams. i recommend to you to go back and look and the precepts that actually let us believe that is a key element of our creed, the first model, divine providence as much of our intentions. i know that on c-span the other day a brief broadcast of the lincoln celebration that speaker pelosi said resilience on the line providence, she is ratted and didn't understand that america is supposed to rely on divine providence. interesting in that light. -- against the tories as the great divide between the people in the elite, the king and pope,

and that these great . >> host: we got the point, thank you. >> guest: i remain committed believe in american exceptionalism and that's not to deny that we have our flaws and lapses. i just think that there are two kinds of people in this world, people who believe that america is a good and great country and people who doubt. i do agree with the callers recommendation to read history and one of the books that i just and reading over the holidays is a book by john you, which is going to be out soon called crisis in command. he goes through a very thorough review of the history of the exercise of executive power over the course of american history from george washington to george rush to show the kinds of decisions that the bush administration was forced to make in the wake of

september 11th are clearly within the tradition of the exercise of executive power over the ages and although john and i might disagree alternately about our assessment of renton results exercise of that executive power, the point is that it's a mistake to have a very narrow in the bush deranged and anti bush team did you view of how we're handling the war and terror. obviously i think that the obama administration has finally grappled with the gravity of these decisions, particularly just to wind back to some of the things we talked about at the beginning of the show, with regard to indefinite detention. >> host: michelle malkin copper authors and blogger, michellemalkin.com in case would like to see her work, has been a our guest for the last three hours on booktv in depth...