susan checkedy discusses her book never say die about the myths surrounding aging in american culture and the health injury -- industry with aarp. up next, a look at the anti vaccine movement in the united states. chief of the division of infectious diseases at children's hospital and philadelphia explains the reasoning behind and consequences of that not vaccinating yourself and your children. dr. offit speech at the manhattan institute. it's about an hour. >> i was a resident in pediatrics at children's hospital in pittsburgh in the

late 1970's. at that time we would every week as in terms see children who would come into the hospital infected with a bacterium called influenza type b. an incredibly common cause of and for my -- meningitis. was a common cause of sepsis, which is a bloodstream infection, and a common cause of something sitting on top of the wind pipe which swelled up and cause suffocation. beside every week. by the late 1980's, the vaccine was developed to protect

fewer than ten cases a year up until recently. there was, just to put this in perspective, a year ago we had a child admitted to a hospital who had bacterial meningitis. every monday we had weekly infectious disease conferences were fellows, and listen to our presentation and make the presentation. when we presented that case with that bacterial meningitis we asked them to go through the list of what could have caused that. they had never seen it before. even though that is what this child had and what killed this child. this is one of several children who in the philadelphia area, three specifically, that died. they died because the parents were more frightened of the vaccine than they were of the disease prevented.

it is a testament to how successful we have been with the vaccine, that these residents, these fellows did not -- that bacteria did not even come to mind. this is not -- the outbreak which occurred not only in philadelphia, but also minnesota and in a couple of the states, it's not unique because there have been other outbreaks. we have a measles epidemic in the united states in 2008 that was bigger than anything we had in more than decade. amounts at the epidemic involving 1500 people beating several people dead. we have pretences or whooping cough spell breaks in california involving more than 9,000 people causing ten yen babies to die. the biggest outbreak we have seen since 1947. so why is that? why is it we have, but fear that a vaccine to the level that we now have outbreaks of infectious

diseases? we have come to see this lifesaving medical product as something to be feared rather than embraced. i argue in this book that i think the birth of the american anti vaccine movement occurred on one specific day, april 19th 1982. there was a one hour television documentary that aired on wrc t v4 in washington d.c. woods was an nbc affiliate called dp t vaccine roulette, the vaccine this. pretences, tetanus. the show was dramatic. i mean i don't know if you remember frederick wiseman. it made such famous films as bad. it had that quality. the stores were one of parents and there were all the same. they told the story caught my child was fined and now look what happened.

you see very up close children who had mental retardation, a permanent seizure disorder, epilepsy, spastic lands who were wearing bicycle summits, seizing, looking vacantly up into space. it was dramatic. it was like a richard avedon picture. it was far too intimately involved with the pictures of those children than you could stand. it was really very emotional and gripping and had an effect. there were a few people in virginia, washington d.c. area that day including barbara fisher, kathy williams, and jeff schwarz to get together through that local nbc affiliate, got people to call the show and get together. they very quickly within a couple of weeks formed a group called dissatisfied parents together towards the pt. by the early 1990's they had changed their name to the national vaccine information

center of which laura fisher was the head. this group was powerful enough and connected enough early on, within one month of the shows airing there was a congressional hearing headed by carl hawkins, which is a republican senator from florida do was looking into whether are not vaccines, in fact, were doing more harm than good. the result was predictable. there was a flood of litigation claiming the vaccine not only caused epilepsy or mental retardation but and explained, sudden infant death syndrome and other illnesses to the point that there were hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements and awards. companies were largely abandoning the business. we went from six measles containing -- measles vaccine makers to one, three polio vaccine makers to one, and we went from a whooping cough or pretences vaccine makers to one. we were on the verge of losing

vaccines. what happened in 1986 is the government stepped in and created something called the national childhood vaccine pact which created the vaccine compensation program to put up a wall between the parent and the pharmaceutical company. you had to first go through this federal claims court before you could actually sue a pharmaceutical company in open court. but we went from 27 vaccine makers in 1955 to 18 vaccine makers in 1980 to basically five vaccine makers today. although i think the national childhood vaccine injury, that occurred in the early 1980's, a tremendous. what's interesting about that to me is that at the time, and john stossel will remember this, we did not have the science to go up against the contention. nothing to fear was that the protests this vaccine caused permanent brain damage. there was not buried looking at hundreds of thousands of

children who did or did not receive that vaccine. it took ten years for that signs to mature it took another 15 years to figure out what was really happening. basically 2006, almost 25 years after that event, after that television show you now have in hand the kind of genetic probst to allow you to look at those children to see what really was the cause of epilepsy and retardation, and that work was done by sambar to make at the university when he went back to look at the children in their 30's and '40's to see what was going on and found almost all of them had something called an fc n1 mutation which is to say but, this is a genetic mutation with 100%. all these children will develop mental retardation and epilepsy independent of whether they

receive vaccines. that when hepatitis b vaccine

was first introduced, there aga, but barbara fisher on world news tonight climbing that the vaccine caused sudden infant death syndrome. there was actually a 2020 peace. you can see her on one of the be rolls. no, making the claim that this vaccine was causing permanent harm. these are very emotional selves. hepatitis b vaccine show on 2020 when he downs and barbara walters or the host showing a mother who had given her job the second dose of hepatitis b, and the child within a day of that passed away from sudden infant death syndrome. that mother said, you know, my child was fine and this vaccine kilter. then they show the tombstone with the inscription, our little angel. i think anyone who is human will be moved by this and feel that maybe this is a vaccine that should be avoided even though we now clearly know that does not cause sudden infant death

syndrome. but the bad vaccine is only designed to prevent one specific pathogen. it does not protect everything else that happens. some of those things are going to happen are a group of girls which go from state to state that are supported by entire vaccine groups that claim they were fine, and pick up the human papilloma virus vaccine and develop chronic fatigue syndrome or blood clots. they dated now clearly shows that the human papilloma virus vaccine does not do that. powerful stories and there are people who are choosing not to get the vaccine because of the stories within put themselves at the risk of getting cervical cancer 20 to 25 years from now.

as we all know, probably the biggest hit, i think, are what most people are embracing as a consequence of vaccines is the notion that vaccines caused autism. we have gone from one hypothesis to the next. ten years ago it was the combination vaccine. that morphed. containing preservative's causing autism which is now morphing to a more general and vague hear that too many vaccines given too soon cause autism and maybe we should not are separate them or delay them so that we don't put children at risk, but by doing that all we do is increase the time during which children are susceptible to vaccine preventable diseases which don't offer any benefit parry hedblom so, i think that now what you have been as the fallout is parents that have a vague notion that vaccines might be doing harm. it is estimated that four of ten

parents are choosing to delay one or more vaccines and you're starting to see these outbreaks. i will say that i think that there is a role for consumers and vaccines. i think probably the best example of that is the oral polio vaccine, developed. we started using that vaccine in the early 1960's to the late 1990's. that a vaccine itself was a rare cause a polio. it was called vaccine associated. the only live vaccine that has the capacity to revert to narrow vigilant and cause polio. in an indistinguishable. it's rare that every year in this country, we eliminated polio in 1979, but every year after that we would see six to eight cases. one of those children who suffer from the vaccine was a child named david solomon. his father was jan salomon and he worked with the italian american backs a -- foundation.

he made this a cause, and i was on the polio vaccine working group at the cdc in the late 1990's. he was asked to be on that group. his voice was important. when we move from the oral polio vaccine to i especially eliminating this rare cause of polio, john had everything to do with that. so i think vaccine activism as important. i think in the consumer activism is important, but it must be signed. you cannot just make stuff up. you can see what vaccines to be safer so they don't cause autism. they don't cause autism anyway. you can't make a vaccine say for the does not cause the thing you are arguing for a. i do think that in some ways the pendulum is swinging back. at think the media -- and i guess i should not to reedbuck the media about

has done a little more suspicious about some of this anti faxing rhetoric, certainly the autism story is no longer carried by mainstream media as a scientific controversy. it is at most a cultural controversy. they have got much better. new york times has articles. the l.a. times, a controversial when it wasn't. that changed. also starting to see hospitals take stronger stands. our hospital is one of them. last year in 2009 we decided to mandate the influenza vaccine. since the early 2000's we had really pushed to educate our health workers to get an influenza vaccine. i mean anybody that could walk the floor. 9400 employees at the children's hospital. anybody who could potentially what the floor where there would be a vulnerable child was asked

to get an influenza vaccine. a lot of our court conditioning. immunization rates up. obviously that puts us at one of the best in the united states. we had raffles and giveaways, things like, you know, eagles tickets. actually good. not like sixers tickets, which you can't give away. and we get immunization rates. but, that meant that several hundred people were choosing not to be vaccinated and could still walk the floor. so we mandate the flu vaccine. we basically said if he did not want to get a flu vaccine you had two weeks of unpaid leave to think about it. if he still didn't want to you were fired. we fired to people in 2009. they take us to arbitration in may of 2009. that decision was made in september on behalf of the hospital. the reason we did it is that

since 2003 we had two children, both little girls, who came into our hospital with cancer, had not been vaccinated because it would not matter. the vaccine would not have worked. so there were dependent upon those around them to be protected. they can to the hospital without influence a, they came and caught it and died from that disease despite heroic measures on our part. you is responsible? is it our responsibility to make sure we put them in the position where they are least likely to get influenza? we think the answer is yes. we don't think it is your inalienable right to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection. you could make the same argument for the whooping cough up break in california. that outbreak involve 9,000 people and ten children have died, all of them were less than three months of age which is to say that they were to read beyond to have been effectively vaccinated. so the immunization rates, in

california all adolescents were recommended to receive the teed up vaccine. 40 percent get it. all of adults who live in the home of the and child are recommended. 6 percent get it. 6 percent. i'll give you an example. came into our hospital nine months ago with the two months old to get whooping cough and died. she got it from her mother. well, the mother got sick about two weeks after the child was born with an app respiratory fact in action. with the mother delivered, which is actually a local hospital, the nurse came in and said to the mother, in your recommended to receive the vaccine. the mother said i would rather not. the nurse said okay. that was the chance to save that house life. that moment has to be far more passionate from the clinician side to another doctor, nurse practitioner to let people know that when they make that choice

is a potentially dangerous one. the and so you could argue that if parents, parents deliver a child into the home. it is mandated. the father and mother received the vaccine. philosophical exemptions, but you could argue that it is the only way that they're going to protect that young child. if you like it to dice, it is always less than six months old because the wind pipe is more narrow. they are the ones that died. it is the home. it is the home from which they catch it. enormous sympathy for anyone who watches a child suffer and die, the worst loss in the world. you never want to come down. but it is that balance to me between the sovereign right of a parent to raise their child as they see fit. protect its children.

i think that balances personally just far too much on the side of the parent. it should not be the parent's right to transmit a potentially fatal infection. so, what changes all of this? we hear a lot of rhetoric about trying to tighten philosophical or religious exemptions. i don't think it's ever going to change. i think it will have to change, the way that we see ourselves. we see ourselves as part of an immunological. we are all in this together. about 500,000 americans who cannot be vaccinated because they're too young in the case of children less than six months of age. they cannot be vaccinated because their getting chemotherapy for cancer or immunosuppressed and therapy for transplants or their asthma. you know, that asthma. they depend on those around them to be vaccinated. if not they are the ones who are

most likely to suffer and be hospitalized and i. so i think we have to find a way to appeal to the societal instinct. it is there. when 911 happened we applauded that societal instinct of the police department or fire department to get a save those who are at risk. they wanted to try and protect their fellow man. i do think it is an. i think we have to find a better way to appeal to us. [applause] >> yes. >> please wait for the microphone. >> thanks. >> and the epidemic.

it is generally a kid thing to do. adults a terrible about getting vaccine. one infectious disease group. a representative of adults, it's going to be well less than 100%. you're right. >> annual checkups as long as i

can remember. i can't remember ever being vaccinated since i was a child. i can't remember a physician recommending inoculation. as an adult habit which inoculations sibila should adults have? >> the protests this, you could be getting that at least once and then every ten years periods back sorry. your recommended to receive a chicken pox vaccine, if you are over 60 it is likely that what you're recommended to receive his eight singles vaccine which will protect one of the more painful and debilitating diseases of man. rep -- recommended to get a hepatitis b vaccine. you're right.

internists are not great at this. obstetricians are not credit this. >> that's a good point. the flu shot also. >> and the vaccine. [inaudible] >> i am a medical oncologist. congratulations for the one of fortunate to have gone. [applause] the problem may be the hope is not in our stars. we have done a terrible job. we cannot expect the media to do our job for us. if you bear with me i will give

you several examples. the first one is that we both probably read about it. the day that the fda said, you know, it should not be given, breast cancer meeting, the most prestigious conference in the world. that shows given to women before surgery had a 40% increase response rates periods bad that involves about 25-30% of the people. there was no reaction at all. they just said we can't use the medicine that will help 25% of women with breast cancer. now, they come find out which to buy, which company is good, but they don't want to cover that. i remember walking up that hill down to the children's hospital.

he prove women need a lumpectomy. he did this wonderful trial to prevent breast cancer. what he was doing but he often went after it querist excess

there's. >> of forum here. my question is, what do we do to get to our message across? to we trained physicians in public relations have to go

about it? no one knows about it. >> i completely agree with you. as scientists we are terrible that interacting with the media. alitalia why and how i think we can get better at it. the reason this certainly as a pediatrician to mop we are nice people. we are not very good confrontation, that even. as a scientist, it is not -- is scientific training is not training to interactive media, but the opposite. you are really talk to the very critical, and it is hard for you to lay a definitive statement. you know that you can never prove never. you have people like jenny mccarthy who are willing to say it causes autism in this child. that's what your up against.

it is public money. but your responsibility to try and educate the public that pays you. so i think we have been terrified. we are not crazy. real trend in the opposite of that, and we need to get in the game even though it is not an easy game to enter. especially on national television, a complex issue and reduce it to the sound bite, not only does it feel wrong, it is wrong. intellectually dishonest, but you have to get to the other side, the entire science side. >> other motivations in the anti vaccine camp? >> i think those who passionately believe that

vaccines are essential believe it. they have a vaccine. i believe it did it. that's where they're coming from, and they don't want of the children to be hurt. that's what i think. although some of it is of little concerning, upsetting. i agree with the personal injury lawyers and anti vaccine activists being connected to my little disturbing. but sig believes her child was hurt by the pertussis vaccine. i don't believe she's lying. at think she's trying to help other children. that vaccine did not cause it. she is advocating for something that is not. she is a smart woman with a powerful voice and she is certainly media savvy and politically connected and there are issues that vaccine face is that one could focus on the beat made in eggs. so people who are severely allergic to eggs have a problem with that.

there are vaccines that a stabilized can also be a pretty significant halogen. could you use another stabilizer? absolutely. you would seek changes. there are things to which i think consumer advocates and would make a difference. it's painful to watch people who are so good at what they do advocate for something that is in the problem. >> also you talk about this in the book. a cottage industry of experts who limit and testify in these cases to bad science. >> and that's right. it has, you know, roughly $2 billion. a large thing for personal injury lawyers and those to testify on their behalf. >> i'm michael meyers, executive director. okay. the science concerned.

science is not perfect and very often is not short term. they require a long-term study. if you have a vaccine today before h1 n1 and you develop a vaccine that will prevent you from getting aids really may be ten years later 15 years later they confront a long-term study of the vaccine his fax they do not know about. so it's not just fear of vaccines. particularly with respect. we are a society. we believe in the economy of the individual. my question to you is, what circumstances, h1n1 becomes

epidemic in terms of the metropolitan area and stuff like that. all of the kinds of things. what would make it mandatory verses will we do now where people call it a volunteer? >> okay. i think -- thank you, the question is not -- well, the way i see it it is not when you know everything, but when you know enough. if you want to use the example of 2009, that's fine. here's a vaccine that is made with technology being used to make the vaccine the sense of france in the mid 1940's. this is technology that is 60 years old. we know that the influence of vaccine in this is a an immune response which is protected. the question is whether this would increase that same level of protection to protect what we now know. we had somebody come and in

2009. cost 47 million people to suffer from a 250,000 to be hospitalized, 1100 children. ten times more than die typically. we have five children e in our hospital. the odds are those children, although they have suffered, the odds are you would not die had they received the vaccine. >> thank you for that. now, and i'm not dismissing your point. the question of could there be long-term affects? it's certainly a reasonable one. an example of that, rexene said in a round for the last 200 years. we have a lot of data in terms of medical intervention. probably the longest in best tested. the technology is to make it well warranted. i don't share that. i understand it. when you choose not to get a

vaccine, these children that died in hospital, you take a risk. a choice not to get a vaccine is a choice to take a different risk. the question is what does it look like? >> wait for the microphone. [inaudible] >> sixty. [inaudible] the fact that we haven't had any sense. at that it is mandatory. >> well, it is -- yes. the question, are vaccines mandatory? there are. forty-eight of 50 states have a religious exemption. the 21 states have a exemption to say is against your philosophy. and not sure. but frankly, the religious

exemption, i don't understand. in no, it is made in 1796. the old testament was written between 1400 the korean of around 600. these the three major benefits, none ever mentioning the word vaccine, never predicted vaccines. i'm not sure where that comes from. >> yes. christian science 1875, eight years after. that specifically says don't get vaccines. i don't think most of those. >> everything that we have discussed so far has been about the united states. could you provide an international perspective on these same issues and controversies elsewhere to the degree of these populations are

vaccinating other countries and whether a vaccine industry is being encouraged or discouraged and other places around the world? >> yes. thank you for that. to put this in perspective the united states is great. we have children, 14 different diseases in the first few years of life and another to an adolescence. our aim is -- immunization rates, that's great. we have certain communities that are under vaccinated. and it is better than, i think many of the country. if you look at of the countries where vaccines are available, it's never mandated. england has a measles endemic. you know, mom's is endemic. that outbreak you had in new york and new jersey came from england, that so-called strain came from england to the united states with one of the camp counselors. the fear is exported.

1982 because of fear of the pertussis vaccine. it originated in england publishing a paper. an immunization, a drop from 80% to 30 percent and had 35 deaths because of that and tens of thousands of hospitalizations. the birth of the notion that the hepatitis b vaccine caused multiple sclerosis. they shut down the school based program because of fears it caused multiple sclerosis, which is just wrong. england is the source of the notion that p.m. and our vaccine, the late 1990's. it is england. the problem is england. if you look at the measles outbreak in 2008, the epicenter of that was in southern california. a mother ketches measles and comes back to the united states

and proceeds to determine to come in contact with the child in the pediatrician's office. the whole food store. disease. but the whole food stores, ex thank you. doctors, an estimated 10-15000000 illegal aliens in this country, presumably.

does that have many ramifications? so many unvaccinated people. >> and that is certainly part of the story. it is not only that some people have chosen not to vaccinate their children. it is also that there are those whose access to medical care is less and therefore they have been less able to get the vaccine. if you look at pertussis, it is almost the opposite of what happened. there are dealing with smallpox. if you look at the anti vaccine in the mid-1800s, it was among people who were not as well educated who fear vaccines. tended to have a responsible position and control him make that choice. in philadelphia the hispanic population which generally is a lesser population and to some extent and less educated

population, they actually get vaccines. they believe in the expertise of the doctors that serve them and think that they know more about vaccines and get vaccines. it is ironic. >> vaccines are unpopular causing us to miss opportunities. maybe opportunities. new vaccines could really have a powerful weapon. i mean, investing because of it. >> i don't think so. certainly there is a tremendous push and pull to make a malaria vaccine. as a company to my think companies are indexing and have made significant limits. the hiv vaccine, they spend a million dollars. the program which failed, but

that was -- this certainly were willing to spend the money. i don't think money is the problem. the good news is that is not true. fortunately not that many companies that do it. i think some level of the tremendous amount. >> dr., to what extent is there an unholy alliance between the litigation industry? >> right. when it was created in 1986, really, it is an exceptionally good firewall between the litigant and the jury trial. the way it works is you have special masters, judges who are lawyers that now serve as special masters who at least look through the data and can make a recommendation.

probably your best example. i mean, there you have parents with 5,000 children, more than 5,000 children who believe vaccines caused autism. probably 2002 to 2009 and ten. a long time and a lot of money spent. the judges were very clear and strong. vaccines don't cause autism. turned away. if that had gone to a civil court or state court i can't imagine. sir and judicial hellholes cough philadelphia being one of them. mississippi, jury trials, i think those companies would have got murdered. so i think that is good. there is a critical supreme court case heard in october which will probably be adjudicated on february 202nd. that has in its heart the capacity to overturn that program. that would put us back to where we were in the early 80's. i don't think that's going to

happen. i'm confident that the supreme court will not overturn the program, because they can't to read it would be too much steak. >> next question. terrific. please join me in thanking. [applause] >> paul offit is the chief of the division of infectious diseases and a director of the vaccine education center. to find out more. >> visit booktv.org to watch any of the programs you see here on line. tex the author are book title in the search bar on the upper left-hand side of the page and click search. you can also share anything you've seen on booktv.org easily by clicking share in the upper left-hand side of the page and selecting the format.

streaming live on line for 48 hours every weekend with top nonfiction books and authors. booktv.org. >> coming up next on book tv, michael sure talks about osama bin laden and his war against the united states ten years after 9/11. he spoke about his book at the philadelphia free library. >> good evening. at think it is perhaps a troubling time to be talking about this subject, but the events of the past month, perhaps six weeks require us all, i think, to rethink how we stand in the middle east. tonight i would like to talk about the three threats to the united states that emanate from the persian gulf, iran, saudi arabia, and what i call al

qaedaism. in speaking about the islamic militancy of want to start with words george washington used to describe the new national government responsibility to ensure that americans clearly understand that threats that they face at home and abroad. i am sure that the massive citizens of these united states in well. washington told john j. i believe that there will always act well whenever they can obtain a right understanding of matters. let me say that i share washington's fate and the essentially sound common sense of americans except, perhaps, the coming generation whose members seem unable to figure out how to put a baseball cap on so that the brim points for work. i am not saying that when our national government under either party is capable or even desire ring of and accurately education for the citizenry about the islamists thank confronting

america. americans do not simply have what washington calls the right understanding of the threats from the persian gulf region. in my writings i have sought to a quite americans with the nature of these that's what they're from iran and lebanon, the vicious marshall anti christian, anti-jewish, and anti-western brand of islamic theology or the forces osama bin laden, al qaeda, and other islamists lead and inside. i also argue that the and not been at states government is fighting an islamist enemy that does not exist. therefore it is implying policies that run counter to historical traditions and its best interests. official washington islamic enemy is the stuff of hollywood farce. the islamists are a limited band

of fanatic neil this ready to kill widely and indiscriminately for the per jury of murdering and ready to sacrifice their lives because my daughters go to the university. early presidential primaries every four years and because i, may god forgive me, and one or more sam adams after work. he would be at most a lethal innocents and not the national security threat posed today to a lesser or greater degree by enron, the saudis, islamic imperialism and the sunni islamist movement inspired by osama bin laden. this view is unfortunately endemic in both u.s. political parties. much of the u.s. and western media and perhaps most damaging, much of the academy, especially at our most prestigious universities. it is in my judgment that this view is almost entirely without

substantiation. as it continues to be washington's working assumption america will slowly but surely be defeated through the loss of prestige, blood, financial solvency, and domestic political cohesion. we will lose not because any of these threats are stronger than we are, that certainly is not the case. america is myopic governing elite and media acolytes have taken enemies who are each ancient military capability and made them into 10-foot tall and still growing behemoth's. the three threats i will speak about i those posed by iran, saudi arabia, al qaeda, and its allies. taking these three threats that as first look at the smallest the spinning thread which comes from ron. since our embassy was seized in

1979 and america was humiliated for more than 200 days the republic has been the dead do our of the bipartisan u.s. governing elite. the hostage holding created a hatred among ordinary americans that is easily exploited by u.s. politicians, journalists, academics, and pro-israel organizations. successfully the scaremongers have been -- so successful have these been in hyping what they often call in night sig -- not seem like a runyon threat that in all of american history and probably has not been done on threat that has been more feared by the average american. look at iran and what you see. of relatively small island of shiite muslims. they would rather kill them then all the americans, britons, or israelis that they can get their hands on.

second, we see a iran that in the last decade has been virtually surrounded by u.s. military bases and those with access to high seas can be shed almost instantly. slurred, we see an hour on his energy production has peaked and with the economy it supports suddenly declining. in cold war terms enron is fully contained by opposing hours. then again, so is the rock, and that did not stop an unnecessary disastrous war. i, you might say. what if they get a nuclear weapon. my answer is, there is no if about it. ron will. if we have been serious about stopping it we would have stopped our european allies from selling iran the necessary elementary technology in the 1990's. iranian has heard nothing from washington, israel, and much of

nato for the past 20 years except threats of regime change and preemptive strikes come experience little but the reality of u.n. sanctions and most recently seen more than 400 u.s. congressmen and senators turning on their own president by standing and cheering at a 2010 speech in washington by benjamin netanyahu calling for war on iran. it has also seen, as we are seeing today in egypt western governments encouraging their nice, safe, and politically naive college students to twitter yang iranians to urge a political revolution without a care about how many would die in the streets as a result. given this context in terms of political reality leaders are truly negligent if they are not seeking an effective defense against the constant threats from the world's most militarily potent nations.

so to ron will certainly get the nuclear weapon. then what? well, rye response would be to ask so what. they don't have the ability to hit the united states. we certainly can incinerate persia. the she as will not supply the city extremists who would be more likely to use it against the run and the last. will they not use it against israel, you ask i would say only if iranian leaders of the most stupid men and women of law ever created. a large multi faceted and wholly accounted for -- unaccounted for arsenal. it would surely use it if iran looked like it was even remotely thinking about a first strike. the acquisition of nuclear weapons leaves it a island surrounded by hostile alcyone's, military bases, and u.s. and israeli nuclear focused squarely on it. in other words, with or without

a nuclear weapon they are contained. it can continue to dabble with violence surrogates in the israel muslim religious world, but it cannot pose a military threat to the united states. before moving to our so-called friends that me say that there is one serious threat to the united states, but only if we or the israelis strike first. thanks to more than 35 years of criminal negligence by the u.s. executive and legislative branches in the areas of border control and domestic security both enron and its lebanese hezbollah have created a large clandestine infrastructure in the continental united states, one which works with similar networks in canada, mexico, and the caribbean. too smart and afraid of u.s. military power to use this that were to strike first in america, but it is clearly designed to allow them to respond with violence here if attacked by the

united states or by our israeli allies. now for saudi arabia and the other gulf arab tyrannies that govern this database and to what we too often forget is referred to by this in the world as the arabian gulf. let me first say that i use saudi arabia and to a lesser degree been the nation state that is the most dangerous to the united states and the west generally. yes, russia and china are threats to the united states, but they are threats washington openly acknowledges, a closely watches and assesses and is fully capable of defending america against. saudi arabia, however, is a serious threat. indeed, one more dangerous toward which are governing beliefs in both parties turn a blind eye. our elite deceitfully pretend that riyadh is a close ally. it keeps america's energy

dependent on its enemies by relying on the saudis to play a pro-u.s. role, and it endangers our economy by allowing the saudis to buy an ever larger share of our ever more out of control federal that. in addition, the saudis over the past 30 years built a highly effective lobby in the united states which is as pernicious, effective, and corrupting as i have had, the more quiet and some of. this lobby employs former u.s. ambassadors, generals, and senior intelligence officers to argue its case in the white house, congress planned media and especially the wall street journal. needless to say this lobby's work is enthusiastically assisted by our oil and arms making corporations whose concerns have less to do with u.s. security than in making sure that they keep their seats on the saudi gravy train that is even now hauling away another

$60 billion worth of u.s.-made arms to be due to these factors u.s. leaders never tell americans the truth which is that since the 1970's oil boom started an enormous transfer of western wealth to the peninsula the saudis have quietly exploited a brand of suny is long that has radicalized much of the historically defined middle east region in which now arabizing populations in places like indonesia, malaysia, pakistan, afghanistan, india, the balkans, the north caucasus, and sub-saharan africa. last year in nigeria, for example, saudi and gulf missionaries long labored and spend large sums of money, and islamic group amended its theretofore local agenda to name the united states as its number one target for america's

oppression and aggression against muslim nations, particularly iraq and afghanistan and because of its blind support for israel. more immediately dangerous for the west, however, the saudi funded regime's activities of the surrogate islamic terrorists, especially in the united kingdom. for more than 30 years the domestic religious establishment which controls education, social policy, and missionary work has brought west of -- western muslims for the kingdom. these men returned to the west to preach what can only be described as a martial oriented islamist imperialism, the vision of the world's holy islamic which for the west would mean christian and jewish populations could convert, accept subordination or face elimination. these preachers are prominent in mosques in the united states and europe and have secured

positions as chaplains in western universities, prison systems command militaries. this is not to say, let me stress, that all american or european muslim communities share this