bombs, why were the bombs dropped. and it drew me into many areas. the love of violence. there is a love of violence. there is a sense of beauty in violation. violence. there is the drive to make a better and better weapon. you know, i work, i'm associated with mit, and i became sensitive to the concept of sweetness, scientific sweetness. technocratic sweetness because this is a phrase that the man at tan project -- manhattan project people use, why did you make the bomb? well, we wanted to win the war, but it was such a sweet -- this is their word, not mine -- problem. why do you want to make a hydrogen bomb when you've got an atomic bomb? because the problems are so fascinating and challenging, and then you get the machinery behind this, and the machinery takes on the life of its own.

.. you are doomed in the postwar elections. >> well, unfortunately we're out of time and we've barely dented this boat. and one of the things that really impressed me with not just the number of parallels between these two long-time

painful wars fought by to check for generations now, but the depth of the point that those parallels and also some important differences. so i hope this becomes required reading in our service academies and certainly by our elected officials what to do with issues of war and peace. but i just want to thank you providing this boat. >> thank you so much for the chance to chat with you. >> thank you. >> next, dinesh d'souza contend that president obama's economic and foreign policy plans will weaken the united states and curtail the country superpower status. he presents his book at the national conference on christian apologetics audit northside baptist church in charlotte, north carolina. this program is 50 minutes. [applause] >> thank you all very much.

i didn't realize i was going to have this invisible podium. i really believed i remembered to wear pants. [laughter] i'm thrilled to be here for the fourth year in a row speaking at the national apologetics conference. alex mentioned that i have a new job. and the president of the king's college in new york city. it's a christian college with a quite unique mission, most christian colleges in some sense are a shelter from society. they protect christian students from what is seen, often rightly as the public influence of mainstream institutions.

one of the dangers, however, is when you insulate young people from mainstream institutions, you cut them off from those institutions. the reason that the king's college in new york city is we don't protect you, but we do prepare you. so our goal is to take bright, young students, mostly christian and equip them to defend their faith in secular society and also to go on to successful in transforming careers at goldman sachs, capitol hill, cbs news. in other words, we want the prepared christians to push in secular society. if you want to know more about the king's college website is www.tk speed kings college.edu. in my career, i have some might

say put one foot in two different worlds. on one hand i have one foot in the world of debates about god and religion, just last night i had a debate in which i was at the university of wisconsin in madison on its christianity good for the world? but i also have one foot in the debates about culture and politics. and i think as christians we are called to be not only -- not of the world, but in the world, understanding the world so we can be a positive influence in it. i want to talk today about leadership and i want to talk about the ideas and the vision of the man who is leading, not only america, but in some sense the world. the president of the united states. president obama is in some ways a mystery man.

he was perhaps the most unknown guy to come into the white house of any president, a set of very unusual circumstances, including, of course, economic nosedive put them in their. in two years later, a lot of people, not only obama's critics, but even some of his supporters are asking the question, who is barack obama? richard cohen, columnist for the "washington post" and in general a supporter of obama had a column in the "washington post" titled, who is barack obama? and what richard cohen and others are getting it is that it is very clear that obama has a set of policies. we know about those. what is missing is a description of what is underneath that, what is behind not? what is the ideology, if there is one, that is driving those

policies? what motivates obama? now, interestingly in the past couple of years, we have had a whole bunch of theories about what motivates obama. these theories are in response to the fact that obama does things, people don't know why he does them, so they say he must be days or he must be done. and yet, in my view when you look at these theories, they don't fully holdup. they don't make that much sense. so both on the left in the right, you have these ideas, explanations for obama. on the right, for example, it is commonly said that obama is not an american citizen, wasn't born in this country. or don't hear obama is a muslim. he's a closet follower of islam. that explains why he came out in favor of the ground zero mosque. for obama is a progressive, he is kind of a left liberal.

he must've picked up some half-baked liberal ideologies in college. or obama is a socialist, not a marxist perhaps, but some kind of a european-style socialist and that is why he is expanding the size of the government. i think when you begin to examine these theories, you find that they don't quite fit the data. they're like hammers. you have to take the data and sort of work it to make a theories stand up. take for example the idea that obama wasn't born in america. oddly enough, by the way, i wrote a cover story in forbes as a sort of review of my book, which is called the roots of obama's rage. when the fourth article came out at the white house, this is the very odd robert gibbs white house press secretary, he began to attack the boat and say that dinesh is raising the issue of

whether obama was born in kenya. and this is a flat-out distortion of my argument. not only is my book not about where obama was born, but in the book i very clearly, and as far as i know, obama was born in hawaii. how do we know this? well, because in august of 1961, this is when obama was born, there was a notice sent to local hawaiian papers, including the honolulu sunday advertiser, young barack obama borg august 1961. in other words, and unless there was an amazing conspiracy, dating back 50 years, i feel reasonably satisfied in believing that the guy was born in hawaii. is obama a muslim? bell. many people think he is. he does stuff that seems strange. so for example, why would a president endorsed the ground zero mosque? do now, it not as if obama's

advisors, david axelrod, are coming to obama and saying hey, president obama, your poll ratings have slipped, come up for the ground zero mosque. it's not as if that's a politically pearly thing to do, yet obama does that. i reported my book that obama endorsed, somewhat secretly, the release of the so-called blog or read bomber. this is a guy named abdul botha i'm a grumpy. he's an islamic terrorist who brought down a pan am jet over lockerbie, scotland. several hundred people were killed, several of them american. he was tried, he was. and yet, a year ago, the scottish government -- he was being held in scotland, proposed release in and send them home to libya. the obama administration loudly protested and rightly so. what american president would be

in favor of or leasing a terrorist who was directly responsible for the murder of hundreds of americans? and yet, the london times reported that it obtained a letter that the obama administration sent to scotland, just a week before the release, saying to scotland, well, we don't think you should release him. but if you want to, we will not object as long as you keep him in scotland and don't send them back to libya. in other words, it was the scottish officials were quoted in the london times, saying when we got the letter, we interpreted as the american government essentially same week in the wink, we think it's okay to let this guy go. and they did let him go. and today she is a free man in libya. now, why would an american president to this? it seems impossible to explain. and therefore say he must be a muslim. in fact, zero,'s father, barack

obama senior was born and raised as a muslim. his grandfather, anglo had converted to islam, was also raised as a muslim. but interestingly, both those men became atheists. both of those men rejected islam. obama says of his own father, barack senior, he began to to view the muslim turks the way he viewed the african witch doctors. he did not take it seriously. he thought it was a joke and he did not practice islam in any way. and when you look at obama's own life, it's very clear that he has no affinity or is for islam. he is a christian, but a cushion of a certain kind. and i'll come back to that in a moment. he's not a muslim. is obama a socialist? actually, no. the socialist theory seems much a better fit for obama because after all he has dramatically

expanded the scope of government the federal government does not intervening in a whole bunch of areas in the air that he virtually never wanted to before. so for example, it's intervening in the areas of banking and financial regulation and mortgage lending and insurance. obama even got up one day and decided to fire the head of general motors. and the guy deserved to be fired, but it's still unusual so unusual for the president of the united states to be putting out the chairman of a private company. so what is happening this is facing a germanic expansion of federal power at home. and at the same time, president obama has been contract team or reducing the scope of american power abroad or in the world. so if you've summarized the obama administration's policies, it would be strengthening federal power at home and

limiting america's ruling the world. now, the socialist theory, even if you were right, would only explain obama's domestic policy. there's no way it could explain obama's foreign policy. and it does raise the question of, is there an underlying compass or ideology that drives barack obama? this is something, by the way, that is puzzled me. i should say by the way, that in some ways i've sent a reason the ladies to president obama. we were both born in 1961. we went to columbia, in my case dartmouth. we got married in the same year, 1982. and there is a deeper similarity in this sense. i was born in india. i came to america. i arrived on the american mainland as an exchange student at the age of 17. semi-early life, my formative

years were in a different place. obama did not arrive on the american mainland until he was 17. obama spent the first 17 years of his life in hawaii. four years in indonesia. subsequently he went to pakistan. he made three trips to africa. so he has had a rather different background than many americans. in fact, when i was reading obama's boat veterans for my father, and he was talking about indonesia, his life there. he was describing crowded streets, lepers, rickshaws, cows crossing the road. as i read this, it suddenly hit me. wow, this is the world i grew up in. but another streets of bombay and recognized immediately obama was describing the third world. so, what is obama stream?

what motivates obama? one-way device that is obama's during the american dream? is that martin luther's dream or is it something else? is it the american dream? no. that seems odd to say because obama is an embodiment of the american dream. during the presidential campaign he said my story is only possible in america. and that since you think america is unique. and yet in a press conference when obama was in europe, he was asked, do you believe america is unique? actually he was asked, do you believe in american exceptionalism? american exceptionalism is the academic word for american uniqueness. america is exceptional. it's not like any other place. the founders certainly believed america was unique. they called america a new order for the ages. so obama was asked, do you

believe in american exceptionalism? and obama said, no, i don't believe america is in a more exceptional than greece or britain or anyplace else. so in a sense, obama was rejecting at least this idea of american uniqueness that the founders clearly affirmed. i don't think a stream is the american dream. is that martin luther king street? this is a more profound question. martin luther king stream is a dream of a future in which will be judged not by the color bars can come about by the content of our character. again, i think one of the great things about obama is that he embodies martin luther king stream. obama is not fundamentally motivated by race. he's a nonracial president. he doesn't appeal to race. he doesn't talk about it. i think actually that's a major source of his appeal. a lot of people voted for obama because he wasn't, you might say, jesse jackson.

obama, in a sense, has developed a public persona that is not defined and specifically racial terms. i'm attracted to obama on those grounds. in fact, a couple years ago i wrote an article called obama in the end of racism, praising obama, saying he is a nice man. he's got a nice family and i think he will help to bring this country a little closer to martin luther king's idea of the race blind, colorblind society. and yet we still have to ask, is martin luther king stream obama stream? and we have to ask this, have you ever heard president obama passionately defend the idea of a colorblind society? if you haven't, he hasn't. never once has he even as his famous free speech in philadelphia and the sizer allied himself with martin luther king stream. never has he said come on let's

move in this direction and here is why. obama forgive me quotes by mr. kane. as martin luther king said, and uses the phrase, the fierce urgency of now. all that obama means by that as we should all act right now to do what he says. in other words, he is just invoking king to mobilize people to a act on this behalf. so what is obama stream? the beauty of this is that we don't have to guess. we don't have to speculate because obama tells us himself. here is barack obama's autobiography. i direct your attention to the title. dreams from my father. according to obama, his dream is his father's dream. infinitely his book is not coddled, dreams of my father.

obama is not writing about his father streams. "dreams from my father" means these are my dad's dreams that i, obama, have taken. which raises an interesting question. who was barack obama senior? obama's dad? what was he like as a man and what are his ideas? interestingly as a man, barack obama senior was a deeply flawed guy. he was a polygamist. in fact, he was born in kenya. he married a woman in kenya, named as the other. he had two children by her. when she was pregnant with a second, he left them, came to america to study in hawaii. he meant obama's mom and married her, so he now had two wives. before young obama was two, he

left them and went to harvard, where he took up with a third woman, if i understand, took her back to africa and had children by her, reunited with first wife and have more children by her. altogether he had four wives any children. he was also an unfortunately a chronic alcoholic and irregular drunk driver, who got into a number of disastrous driving accidents. in one case, he killed a man. another case coming with drunken driving and got into such a bad accident that both his legs had to be cut off and replaced with iron rods. finally, in 1982 he became drunk in a bar and nairobi and he drove into a tree, killing himself. i mention all this because this is a very unusual guy to make your role model. and yet, obama did. now, some people have said i'm talking about my book, the "the

roots of obama's rage," how could obama be influenced by his father? he never knew the guy. it's true, his father left before he was doing only visited one time when obama was 10. and yet, obama says that for his growing up life, he was obsessed with the man who wasn't there. boomer in the iliad is a very interesting line of articulates. achilles is they hero of the iliad. homer wright, a achilles absent was the curious though. his point being that even though achilles is not president, you still driving the narrative. and so it is with barack obama senior, even though he is a bear, obama is preoccupied with him. he says he wants to shape his life, values, ideas and the image of his father. let me read a quote from obama to testify to this. obama says of his memoir.

he says it is a record of a personal interior journey, a boy searches for his father. and through that search, a workable meaning for his life as a black american. and obama writes again, it was sent to my father's image, the black man, son of africa, that i packed all attributes i saw in myself. incidentally, this is also obama's grandmother and a quote that she sent to "newsweek." she said, i look at him and i feel the same things. he has taken everything from his father. the son is realizing everything the father wanted. the dreams of the father are light in the sun. so here is obama himself and his grandmother, close to obama, testifying that obama is shaped in his father's image. the question becomes, how, if the guy wasn't there, how are you shaped by that? the answer turns out is obama's

mother, and obama. she was the father's first convert. obama says he would often tell his mom, where's my father? alchemy is interior? the mother as they don't criticize your father. he was a hero. he was the great liberator. he was the great man of africa, be like him. is a wonderful quote were the mom is abandoned by his father, barack senior. what did she do? she finds another guy, was another third world items also like barack senior, anti-colonialist to welcome back to that guy at the moment. she marries an indonesian guy called lolo sapporo. and this guy takes anne, his wife, to indonesia. but make it to indonesia, anne obama discovers of the next few years that her new husband is becoming more pro-american, more pro-western and more

anti-communist. and what they should do? she begins to attack him. she begins to say to lolo, you are a traitor. you are a sellout. and she tells obama, don't be like your stepfather. learn to be like your real father. and she packs of young obama, at that time 10 years old, and set them back to i.e. why do? so that he won't be influenced by his pro-american anti-communist stepfather, lolo, but will in fact be shaped in the image of his biological father, barack obama senior. where do i learn all this? i learned from right here. "dreams from my father." it's all told another vivid descriptions. so who was barack obama senior? barack obama senior was a fundamentally, in his ideology, and anti-colonialist. and this is a term of little unfamiliar to most americans, but i do want to tell you is

something i know a lot about. why? because i grew up in indiana. i was raised in the 1960s. india became independent from the british. india, like kenya, was a british colony. anti-colonialism is the air i breathe, growing up in india as a kid. anti-colonialism is my father believed, grandfather, uncles. in fact, anti-colonialism was the dominant political idea in the third world and the second half of the 20th century. anti-colonialism fundamentally has nothing to do with race. it's not a race today. i sometimes tell people the british people did come to rural india because the indians were brown. the british came to conquer. it turned out the british are white, indians were brown and black kind of racial element propped in. a colonialism fundamentally is about conquest and about power. and of course the british ruled kenya, which is where obama senior grew up.

no anti-colonialism is the idea that the world is divided into two. the colonizers are the oppressors and the colonized. with the colonizers? that's the west. it used to be europe, but now it's america. who are the colonized? the poor people of the third world, of asia, africa, middle east, south america. anti-colonialism is an idea that the rich countries got rich by invading and occupying and looting the poor countries. anti-colonialism is the idea that even the rich countries like america, there are powerful concentrations of economic power. the banks, the insurance companies pharmaceutical companies, the oil companies. and these are the greedy, selfish profiteers were ripping off people in their own country and around the world. anti-colonialism is the idea

that you have to fight this oppression in two ways. first of all, you have to de-colonizer bring down within the rich countries give economic elites. you've got to pull them down because they are oppressors. on the international stage companies cut recognize that the west and now america has become a kind of rogue elephant. it is stampeding around the world. it's invading other countries like iraq, afghanistan. it is consuming resources like oil out of proportion to what it has. president obama for akamai says with 2% of the worlds oil, but we use 25%. so we are in a way to greedy exploiters eating up more of our share. so anti-colonialism is the idea that domestically you've got to bring these concentrations of economic power down and internationally got to put a leash, a lasso on the rogue elephant that is america and pull it back from exploiting the

world. now, the question we have to ask is, did young obama adoptive father's ideology? interesting line, obama did not follow his father is a man. obama recognized as he got older that his father was a very smart guy. nevertheless, obama made an important distinction. a distinction between his father as a man and his father is a vision for his father's dreams. obama has a great sin in his book. in fact come as the climax of his book where he goes to his father's grave. he finds his father's grave and he weeps and he flings himself on the ground. and he says, he touches the ground, to africa's red soil, i try to speak to my father. this is a little strange. his father's been dead for six years. so we can't get his father. but what he says is i can't get my father, but i can get

something else. i can get my father's dream. i can get my father's values. i can get by fathers ideals. but where my father failed, because his father ended up a failure. he was a job. he said outside his hut. he would be completely inebriated and he would rage he would rage and rant and foam at the mouth and say america, the west has granted me my dreams. obama new office. in the fight was for my father failed, i can succeed. i think about the circle. i can be worthy of my father by achieving what he never did. here's obama at the grave. he's the beam. he says is that between the two grades then left. when my tears were finally spent, i felt a calm us watch over me. i felt in my life in america, the black clad, white lights, sense of abandonment i felt as a boy, frustration and hope i witnessed in chicago, all of it was connected with the small plot of earth, an ocean away.

the pain i felt was my father's pain. his struggle, my birthright. so here's obama in a sense taking on his father's mission. barack obama senior was an economist in 1965 he published an article in the east africa journal, called problems facing our socialism. the article, by the way, is widely available. even boot lid on the web. and we'll come right out. the article is about what would you do with a powerful concentrations of economic power that dominate the wealth of the society? and obama senior says the answer is really simple. you have to bring the economic elites down. let me quote from his article. incidentally, is rather interesting that this article, which you'll see is quite relevant to what obama has been doing in the white house, if

ever been reported in any major newspaper. you've never heard about it on the evening news. it is rather odd that something that seems quite relevant to the policies that are being -- having such an impact on us, has been in a way kept from us. as i say, it's a public document. here's obama. he's talking about concentration for power. he goes, howard wintermute disparities in our country, such as concentrations of economic power. and then he says this. he says we need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation, so not only a few individuals come into attitude of resources, as is the case now. obama says what we do is number one. we use power to confiscate peoples land. and second, we identify the rich and we raise our taxes. how high? to no upper limit. in fact, as high as 100%.

here's obama. he says, theoretically there is something that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income, so long as the people get benefits from the government, commensurate with their income, which is taxed. in other words, the city government gets benefits it's okay to identify the rich people and take everything they've got. the first ones you might think this is absurd. why would an intelligent man and trained economist proposed 100% taxation? if you put in anticolonial assumption, it becomes very clear because the anticolonial assumption is that the rich guy got rich by ripping off the poor guy. so if you got rich by coming to my house and taken all my furniture, what's the appropriate tax rates for you, 100%, because it is not your furniture. so in a way, here, this

framework, its anticolonial framework hopes is a little bit, i think, to understand our debates now. also president of him obama say the rich are not paying their fair share. their fair share. but he never says that the fair share is. in fact, if you look at government data, i say smothered in this book, the rich currently -- the top 10% of people in america now say about 70% of all the income taxes. 70%. how much does obama think they should pay? eighty, 90, 100? should nobody else pay any taxes? obama leaves the question open. if you look at his father's paper, a paper instantly that obama, and is a very well, he knows everything about his dad come but he is never mentioned or referred to it in the speech, any writing. nevertheless, the ideas of the father are illuminating and help you to consider what obama might mean in talking about the fair share.

the question we have to ask them thinking about all this is a rethink about anti-colonialism, does it help to explain what president obama is actually doing in the white house? i want to suggest that it has tremendous explanatory power, both for domestic policy and for foreign policy. and when to give a couple of examples of what i mean. in domestic policy, president obama has until just a few days ago, then blocking oil drilling in america. he said a moratorium on oil drilling. and this sounds very much like obama as a liberal, kind of like al gore. global warming, let's stop oil drilling, let's learn to live with allies. then i realize he supports oil drilling and obama do is import bank was $2 billion of loan and

loan guarantees for america to subsidize oil drilling in brazil, by the state owned company called petrograd. at first i thought brilliant move by obama. this is so brazil can do the drilling, take the environment to risk and look at the oil. but no, the oilers barboursville. his own authority decided some of the chinese. the question becomes right away is not obama is against oil drilling. he's against oil drilling for us, but he supports oil drilling for them. who was then? the formerly colonized country. apparently what obama is deferring he wants everybody to stop drilling. but obama is doing is he is in some sense trying to enrich the previous colonized countries that have greater access to feel an energy and resources, while taxing our block in the colonizers. he is transferring and away from the west from america to the

third world. so this is redistribution, but it's different than most democrats. most democrats want to redistribute in america. take forever to get to the poor. america is not just promoted within america, but global realignment, that's a different approach about his approach very consistent with the anticolonial idea. look at foreign policy. what is obama doing on the foreign stage? first of all, one of the things he's doing that is going to other countries like venezuela and other third world countries. and to the u.n. and sending a message, helping put the leash on the american rogue elephant. in other words, help me prevent america from that unilaterally to boston bully the world. it's kind of an amazing thing. the american president is going to other countries to help them keep america keep under control.

that's again part of the anticolonial framework that is america was seen as the rogue elephant. now, do you remember a few months ago, general stanley mcchrystal, obama's top general in afghanistan was fired by obama for some indiscreet remarks he made to the magazine, "rolling stone." i think he should've been fired. the remarks were in support meant and he should make those kinds of remarks of your work working for someone. but nevertheless, general mcchrystal's comments were interesting. what did he say? basically what he did as he said he went to obama and presented them with a counterinsurgency plan to win in afghanistan. he said the situation is tough, but you're so we can win. mcchrystal and a staff that obama wasn't interested. he was in their words, disengage. he didn't care. it's anyways, that's odd. why would a president dustless member, obama was against the

iraq war, but it was for the afghan when the campaign. password pair with someone is. you think you'd be rich when afghanistan. and yet here's a general the plan to end and obama is like two cares. now, i would suggest one preset obama may be indifferent to winning if he doesn't want to win. what if obama feels, in the anticolonial framework, that iraq and afghanistan are words of colonial population. so this is not about fighting terrorism. these are about committing terrorism, the rogue elephant, gravity can. his goal is not to win, but to figure out a way to get out. just a few days ago, a few of "the new york times" community the news article, karzai, prime minister of afghanistan entered into negotiations with the taliban and. the taliban.

and i thought when i first read that, these afghans, you just can't trust them. leave them for allowing me against get to go shoot the enemy. these are radical muslims trying to make a comeback in afghanistan. fighting a war against them for years. as horrible karzai is not betraying america by negotiating with the taliban. password will produce to the maritimes, look at the front page headline, the obama administration supports and has been in fact helping to orchestrate the meetings between karzai and the taliban. the united states government is encouraging the karzai government to meet with the enemy. again, plug in the anticolonial theory, which is obama wants to get out. he really doesn't care too much what happens over there. how bad will, karzai will come as a mix of the two. not my business. i just want to get our guys out. add-on make sense. the view of the anticolonial deal is that you plug it and, in accents of other facts.

you take it out and you can't explain it. why would someone do that? considered the case of the lockerbie bomber to considered earlier. i don't understand why any american president would do that, but when i put in the anticolonial assumption, it makes sense. if you look at america as the bully, as the power taken advantage of the world, that is occupying invading muslim countries, then who does that make the muslims fighting against us? anticolonial freedom fighters. they are fighting against american aggression. and so, if you look at it that way, i'm not suggesting for one minute that obama approves of the killing of americans. don't get me wrong. i'm saying what he looks like outlook raki, who portrays himself as anticolonial freedom fighter, obama might say hey at least i can bear that guy. he's a lot like my dad confided push the british out of kenya. this would explain why obama might have a measure of sympathy for macgraw he.

let me say a word -- i is so much more to tell you, but i do want you to read the roots of obama's rage. as you can see come as a fresh story. two years in the obama administration, we have heard this. and yet it seems so vitally relevant in explaining what the president is doing about two, no matter what happens in november, obama remains the commander-in-chief. and they say a final word about colonialism another what to come to an offense that we should think about all this as citizens, as christians. i'm an anti-colonialist. at a blue country should do other countries. i'm very glad that british artist india. on the other hand, the india by mr. taliban home and seeing what to speak at oxford. and he said india is doing really well today. india has the prospect of becoming a superpower, current rate of 10%. he says, why is india exceeding out?

he says well, one advantage we have in the global economy as we indians speak english. and a second is that we have universities in with technology and and we have democracy and we have property rights and we have contracts to enforce them. and then he said, well, how did we get these things? we got them for the british. in other words, colonialism, although the british didn't come bearing s., they came to rule, but nevertheless, as a consequence of colonialism, the indians got aspects of western civilization. either way, aspects of western civilization bill from christianity. and these would help india to rise above his circumstances to as gandhi said, with the tear up every indian face. to that argument with a bomb is not these anti-colonialist, some way i feel that he is frozen in the time machine of his father's anti-colonialism. his father was an african

socialists, frozen the anti-colonialism of the 1950s. my fears in some sense america today is being governed by the dreams of you will tribesmen the 50, who was in the sense locked into a view of the world but it's completely relevant today. countries are coming up all over the world today and they're coming up exploiting what the economist congress of the blood calls the advantage of backwardness. the event is a backwards in backwardness. what does that mean? what it means if you're a poor country, your labor costs are low. and if you can use that to make stuff that other people want to buy, you can come up rapidly. that's how china is coming up, india, and purcell indonesia. where obama lived for four years. you know, when obama was elected, and intimations wreck did it at you to celebrate translate their man, obama, now president of the united states.

a few months ago, that statue was taken down. it was taken down as response to 50,000 signatures by intimations , basically saying we've got figured out that obama doesn't care about indonesia and the fact that in fact doesn't care about asia. why? because it shows he's using the web entrepreneur capitalism to come up and that is not obama's father's way and it's not obama's way. now, as cushions and the citizens, i think we always have to look at her leaders and try to understand them. the great advantage of having the next minatory mortal. i mean, i'm not trying to bash obama. i'm trying to understand. the beauty when you know a man's compass, you can not only explain what he's doing, you can help to predict what is going to do in the future. and i think as citizens, we need to be aware of how her leaders

think and active in our culture. for too long we've allowed ourselves to create a subculture and let them not an allow, you may say, mainstream society to go where will. and the president of the king's college in new york and our mission in some sense is to engage the public debate. one of the things i want to do at kings is i want to find the best christian thinkers in america. i don't just need the best christian theologians. i don't even need the best christian apologist. and in the best christian historians and economists and bring them to kings, to create in new york city come you might say, an intellectual of. when i look at the world, i see the other side -- and i to eps. the atheists have an 18. was there a team? the physicist, stephen hawking.

the oxford biologist, richard dawkins, philosopher daniel dennett. a harvard cognitive psychologist, stephen pinker. the list goes on. the physicist larry crowe. it got an amazingly impressive 18. where is our 18th? we've got some small guys, but they're scattered. when guys read in the journal of medicine over here. another guy at a over there. there's no team. so it seems to me title that we create a christian team of speakers, as scholars who are going to engage in effect for the public debate. and i don't just mean the religious debate. and in the religious debate, even in the political debate. are she and he has valuable bring. for example, capitalism is being debated today not in economic terms, but in moral terms. what is under attack is not

whether capitalism works. it's whether capitalism is immoral, but that the entrepreneur is a greedy, selfish guy. so christianity has ethical wisdom to bring, to examine that debate. i'm not trying to take a side. i'm simply saying we've resources that secular culture doesn't have. so this is a call ultimately for us to understand her leaders and the more active in the world and marshall are best team. i'd like to to bring youngish trains to study them. once again, kings college is 10 years old. when we created the college new york city, we took the charter. we allied with the kings college in new york in the old kings college is about encouraging young people to become missionaries and send missionaries to nigeria and india. i think there is now a new mission field, america,

manhattan and the secular capitalism of america are new york, washington d.c., l.a. and san francisco. and that's the publishing capital of america and the finance capital in the political capital in the entertainment capital and we're not there. and we need to be there. and i think if we work together, we can get there. thank you very much. [applause] >> for more information, visit dinesh d'souza.com. >> a new book out by bloomsbury publishing, "blur: how to know what's true in the age of information overload." the co-author is bill kovach and decide to. mr. kovach, in your book, what

of the quotes as we've been there before. what is acting quite >> abbeys we've been through this dislocation, created by ed expansion created time and again at history. in fact, newspapers are born at such a time when printing press became into being and distributed information to people who had never had information about the people and institutions that controlled their lives. and it took decades for the public in and the industry of information of sharing, develop what we call newsmakers, to create the basis on which people could find information they could trust. and we've gone through this time after time. with each new major change in technology, we've gone three. exactly like this.

>> mr. rosenstiel, why the name "blur"? >> i think because information moves so fast now and there is so much of it, that people feel confused. when information is in greater supply, knowledge is actually harder to create because you have to sit through more things to make sense of it. so there is a feeling that things are more of a blur, are more confusing, even though we have more information at our fingertips. >> so how do we cut through that order and find what we need? >> well, we hope that the way consumers will do it. and consumers are more in charge now than they've ever been. we are in control of our own media in a way we've never been. so we hope what people will do is develop the skills to know what is reliable and what is not. and that's what the book is about. it's a tradecraft that once resided in newsrooms, shared with consumers.

but it's also true that when things are uncertain and confusing, that a lot of people just gravitate to news they agree with. and so part of what we're looking at the information culture now is something of a war between people who want to be empirical and provide evidence and show how information and people who assert what they believe offer opinions and amass an audience that way. >> bill kovach, you're also the co-author of elements of journalism. what is your background? >> excuse me. my background is going on 60 years in print journalism. i began in a little town in east tennessee and cover the civil rights movement and appalachian poverty and worked for "the new york times" for 20 years. eight years as chief of the

washington bureau. and then i was editor of the atlanta journal-constitution. spent the last 10 years of my act of life as curator of the nieman foundation at harvard journalism program at harvard and i am now retired, but working with tom also non-and running an organization that he and i created called the committee of concerned journalists, trying to preserve the values of a journalism that we cannot trust. >> mr. rosenstiel, your background? >> well, i was a newspaper man also. i spent 12 years at "the new york times." one of those is a press critic for the paper. i worked briefly for "newsweek." and while i was there was a porsche but a few charitable trust by creating a think tank, research institute by the press, which we created in 1996 called the project for excellence in journalism. as part of the pew research

center here in washington. the way of the largest content analysis operation in the united states, studying what the media actually produce. on the theory that, conventional presses where you wag your finger at the press, so you could do that, really isn't effective anymore. but if you offer an empirical look on me say this is what you're doing. you decide whether it's whether you want to do, that has more leverage. >> mr. kovach, is an advantage, though, that people can get any types of news they want when they want, rather than wait for the morning paper? >> absolutely, it's marvelous. it's a wonderful system we have now. the only problem is people are now, as tom said, their own editors of what they're going to bring into their report. and their own reporters of was producing this that i'm bringing

and. the people have to become much more aware of the information they are bringing in, how is the produced? was it produced to a reform or propaganda to help them understand or recruit them to a college? this is that this book is designed to do to help them use the process of methodology of verification that the best truth seekers use to create their own dues packed. >> bill kovach, stabbed to, "blur: how to know what's true in the age of information overload." >> "secret historian" has been nominated as a finalist for the national book awards in the nonfiction category. the subtitle of this book is "secrect historian: the life and times of samuel stewart, professor, tattoo artist, and sexual renegade". the author is justin spring. mr. spring, that is quite a

subtitle. who was samuel stuart? >> it's a secret life i brought to light for the first time. he was a university professor who dropped out of being an academic to become and research with opera can see k street about that later on brooch trailblazing, roddick. >> how did you find this guy? >> it took a lot of searching. when i would throw his papers that were put away after he died, i knew i had an amazing my story no matter their touch before. i spent 10 years putting it together and presenting another biography. >> when did you first hear of him? >> i came across reprints of the work he had done, that were being published by small press in san francisco. was very excited about those works, but didn't know who they had written them because they were produced under pseudonym. it took me another 13 years to get the rest of the story. >> how many names to be used

during his life? >> i pay about 20. he was known as the famous tattoo artist and many people who knew him socially nuanced out. samuel or samuel steward and kelley enders is the fourth domain. he wrote for a lot of publications the 50s and 60s in the standard public in article to be under the name. a big part of his life back together with putting together the different names and publications. >> when he took this book to a publisher that i'd like to publish a bio on this man, what was the response? >> the proposal was rejected by 10 publishing houses. it was only because a good friend of mines that try to sell it as a desert gophers. they be a publisher will nibble. i went uptown to "vanity fair," does that do "the new yorker" and then ended up as starsky and drew, where they said i was able to capture the ear of the president of the house and said let's do it. >> wended samuel steward with?

>> eurosport in 1801, had a really long life. we charted the progress of what we now call gay awareness. >> is the well-known today in the gay community? >> now, now the book is coming out he is mourned down. people who care about the history of or sex research for the history of gay literary publishing. this brings that to a much wider audience. he met kids in early 49, late 50 and became an informal associate of the institute for sex research connecting kinsey to research material and also donating vast amounts of his own archive because he was a recordkeeper about sexuality in general. so he gave lots and lots of material to the kinsey archives. >> was he out during his lifetime?

>> he had to live as a closeted man during the time he was an academic. but as he reached his late 30s, he found that more and more difficult. so rather than not the outcome he decided to leave academia. >> justin spring, his new book, "secrect historian: the life and times of samuel stewart, professor, tattoo artist, and sexual renegade", of the nonfiction category. >> and now, co-authors victoria bruce and karen hay is talk about the rise of the revolutionary armed forces of colombia. the colombian and u.s. government, the group and the kidnapping of three american private contract areas and colombian president ingrid betancourt. this held at the new america foundation here in washington last about an hour. >> hi, thank you