sense buddies very much influenced by his, the news that is coming in over his radio, the news that is coming in over his portable television and the news he's reading from the papers. he was a news junkie, constantly reading papers. that's what he got his ideas. it's sort of like going to rhodesia. i'm sure he read all about rhodesia in the papers, but he didn't connect the dots very well. he had this idea, he would go over there, they would embrace him, but whatever, they were actually professionals. they were just going to embrace a stranger from america. and he never was able to connect those dots very well, things like that. but thanks for your question. i think we have time for at least one, one more question. anyone else? right here.

>> in his last days, he admitted the martin luther kings suns that he did not assassinate king. what are your views about that last statement? >> well, shortly before he died dexter king had come to meet with him and he asked them, do you kill my dad? and he said no, i didn't. that's the story that sort of made the wires to her right after that he said but you see, it's competent. these things are very complicated. that was the asterisk that was reported. and that is classic ray. everything had its asterisk if he didn't kill king why did he say that? if he did kill king why the plea bargain and then later recant three days later and say this

guy named raoul actually did it. that is classic ray. nothing was clear. that's the squid ink am talking about. i think the king family very understandably wanted a trial, wanted a real trial because there was never a trial. there was a plea bargain, and so the evidence was presented, but not in, you know, open adversary way he would hope for a criminal proceeding. so understandably that's what they wanted, and i think some members of the king family were convinced that ray was innocent, or at least that is part of a larger conspiracy. in a way, i am convinced he was part of a cruder conspiracy, but a conspiracy of more than one person for sure. but whether the king family found comfort in that or closure in that, it's really hard for me to know. but to me it was kind of a testament to raise county, a

final testament to his cunning. that he was able to convince people that this guy raul existed. when we've never seen a photograph, never seen an address, we don't know what he looked like. there's never been a witness who has ever seen this guy raul in the same room with ray. the fact that that was enough for members of the inner circle and for some certain hours of the king family, shows i think the element of conspiracy. we all kind of, human nature, believe in conspiracy. we look for these larger patterns in a huge crime like this. so i don't know what to make of it in the end. it's disturbing to me because no matter where you stand on the conspiracy question, there's absolutely no question that ray was there. he admitted he was there. and the date he died he said he bought a weapon, bought the scope, was there at the crime scene. you're kind of stuck with james earl ray being there. and yet a member of the king

family shook his hand and said you had nothing to do with this. it's disturbing to me, but, you know, why they did that, that's their question, that's their business, and i think it has a lot to do with wanting that airing of a new trial that would have come if it had been possible. but by that point ray was dying of liver disease. there was a movement to try to get him a new liver. he was way down on the list because he was a convicted criminal. and i think maybe members of the king some thought if they could just get him a liver transplant it was possible to getting back on trial and really finally here what he had to say. because i think in the end that's the frustration, the most frustrating question, he went to his grave as the king family was compared windows i think with a lot of secrets. secrets that we may never have all the answers to. thanks for your question, and thank you so much for listening tonight.

[applause] >> is there a nonfiction author or book you would like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv@c-span.org. or tweet us at twitter.com/booktv. >> and now catherine crier argues that partisan politics are hurting the united states. she discusses a range of issues including the economy, health care, and political debate. catherine crier speaks for about 50 minutes.

>> [no audio] [no audio] >> covering the days front page stories, catherine crier, a texas bred independent with a spirited passion for justice, released several books on high profile cases, such as the scott peterson case and the susan polk murder case. catherine has hosted episodes of prime time series, the system, and numerous other specials such as the jury speaks with dominick

dunne, osama bin laden on trial, and safe pass, voices from the moon school park of the network's public affairs initiative choices and consequences. prior to joining court tv, catherine anchored the crier report for fox news channel. alive hour-long nightly program during which she interviewed the leading newsmakers of the day. catherine currently manages her own production company, crier communications, developing television, film and documentary projects. and now may i welcome with great pleasure catherine crier. [applause]

>> actually television has been very good to me. spent about 18 years starting at cnn and fox, court tv come but i'm going to take you all the way back to probably five or six years old. and i've gotten to the point now i think it is genetic. i remember during the 1960s elections argue with family members about politics. so much so that my step grandfather would pretend to fall asleep so i would shut up. actually i didn't have a clue, but as long as i can remember, i have been passionate about the republic, about the founders, about our history, about politics. my pre-law background, my degree was a politics, international affairs, government, history. i sort of went into law. i would argue with the post and had to find a profession don't pay me to do that. but usually an extension of that

love is what is our law? it is the rule of law which is essential cornerstone of democracy, of the republic. if we didn't have this amazing rule of law, where instead of the king saying you're my friend, the rules don't apply. you're the other hand, i can do with what i want. instead we have this amazing rule of law that is supposed to apply equitably to all citizens. in fact, my first book was nothing to do with crime. well, then again it was called "the case against lawyers." but it was really a political book. the subtitle is how lawyers, lobbyists and legislators have turned the rule of law in to an of tyranny, and what citizens have to do about it. it was a political book. then wrote a book about the supreme court. i have sort of balanced. this is the third of the political books, and much more a broader-based book, but one that i would like to believe is very

timely. because i am, frankly, very troubled about events today. and while something you may think it's because obama or it's because health care or a killer issue, no, i'm concerned more than anything about the integrity of the republic. of the constitutional republic. in which the founders contemplated liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats, as they evolved, would have vigorous fights. and we would all carry on about which direction, and the voters could decide every two in four years how we would shift and change. but all of that debate would take place on a relatively level playing field governed by certain rules set out in our constitution. what i mean by that is you have

to extraordinary wings, liberals and conservatives back in the founders days, go back and read the constitutional debates. our founders were not on the same page. they had a lot of fights. in fact, you've got on one side sort of the john adams, alexander hamilton's, the conservatives who, when you go back and read their remarks, they wanted a monarchy. they wanted a hereditary senate. they liked the system as it existed in england. on the other hand, you have been franklin and thomas jefferson who said we want one house in congress to be elected every year, a real people's house, and want an executive committee. we don't even want the presidency. when you go back and read, much more like what was happening in the french revolution. there was real problems with both sides. one, you've got. one, you've got sort of a tyranny by monarchy, and the other you have a tyranny by the

masses, right? so james madison is credited with creating the grand compromise, the constitution, where he said neither left nor the right, as they existed in 1789, are going to dominate. we are not going to create a system that favors one or the other. we are going to create a system that, in fact, is as level a playing field on which the various ideologies can wrestle, as we possibly can. certainly win the constructiveness, the senate was going to be a bit more elite. back in those days it would be hard to get support across large swaths of territory. so someone with a little more power and money was likely to get elected. the people's house, the house of representatives, was going to be much more for the common man, jefferson and franklin got a little bit, and adams and hamilton got a little bit.

we had a president that he was going to be elected every four years. so there was this amazing level playing field. i started because today we are hearing that my party represents the founders. know, my party does come and i'm thinking you've got to go back and figure out these guys worked on the same page. and, in fact, it was this extraordinary playing field that is what distinguishes our amazing republic, and it is under attack today in many respects. a favorite quote of mine is from john adams, and he said ideology is the science of idiots. today, i think we ought to carry that around and wear it on our lapels. and the reason i say is we had this great level playing field, and i try and the book to everyone back, and then show how both conservative and liberal

ideologies have developed over time, and how, in fact, when you get up to present day you will find that they have almost reversed positions in several very important respects, which means if you are wedded to an ideology, swearing it's the founders ideology, guess what? it's the science of idiots because, in fact, it's not at all what was going on in 1789. today, if you listen to republicans, most conservatives will tell you right, small government, low taxes, right? keep government out of our lives. cases agenda that was in 1789? come on, that was a radical leftist, possibly atheist thomas jefferson. that was franklin and jefferson. because think about. jefferson was this sort of gentlemen farmers living in virginia.

he didn't need the country to be big and dynamic. he imagined small businesses and farmers and quiet, and a bit isolationist, wanted to can't stay away from the world. that was jefferson. all right? than the democrats today, there's a big government and they are trying to tax the people and they of all of these, the government should be building jobs and doing things and creating -- alexander hamilton is considered the father of conservatism. our first secretary of the treasury, you know what, that very first thing he did, he demanded that the country established a deficit. and he went around and he bought of all of the revolutionary war debt from the states, bought it up, brought it in. jefferson is over the screen, can't do it, unconstitutional. hamilton goes balderdash.

i big enough to do it and i've got to have a big powerful central government to do what i have in mind, and that is to create this grand global powerhouse that can, by george, compete with your. we will show those guys that we're not going to be treated like this sort of eon, this colony over here. he will take our resources and sell them back to what. no, we are going to beat you at the game. but what did he need to do that? he he needed to be able to borrow money. he needed to create a deficit in this country. he needed to tax. and by george, the whiskey rebellion was because he was taxing the little guys out a higher rate than they were the big guys. he thought what good is the small shopkeepers and farmers? they can give me what i need. they can't give me big revenues, so tax the little guys, get them out of the way. because what i want to do is i want to have this powerful big government. i want to marry it with the

powerful wealthy elite in this country, and by george, i'm going to come together, we're going to build banks and brooks and canals and bridges and we're going to be able to compete. so that was conservatism in 1789. it is phenomenal to me when we cannot yet infrastructure legislation passed in this country, and they chastise, i go after both sides in the book, i assure you, and i really chastise the conservatives, the republicans today. even when i was a kid, and a conservative republican family, which party was going to build things, grand things come was going to make this country this competitive entity, in my mind it was the republicans. jinnah, the democrats were kind of wandering around disorganized and didn't want to do any of

this stuff. they want to get into the history and i started tracking it through, i realized this was quite a consistent republican policy, until about the great depression. and from that moment on, we began to see it stairstep down and that's really when i think it seems most of the reversal in the political parties begin. because when franklin roosevelt ran for office in 1932, it was to the old time traditional democratic platform. small government, low taxes. he went after hoover for the big financial industry married to the government that, of course, he asserted, and i think in hindsight many of us a lead to the crash in 29. but then he comes in and, of course, the economy has crashed, and there are all of these very desperate people. and his first new deal policy, there were actually too.

first new deal he was creating and allowing monopolies in this country. he brought the big corporatists into the white house. what are going to do to fix things? there was a lot of mass and the supreme court reversed a lot of what he's doing, but if you look at the first new deal it was a real effort to bring business and government together to fix the problems. by the time to get around to the second new deal, that's where a lot of conservatives began to object because those were the social policies that he created to build a safety net. and, of course, he didn't really support welfare with that work, so instead of handing out unemployment checks, he put people to work, the wpa, the cca, and built a lot of things. but that's what you begin to see the democrats developing their reputation as the party of big government. and yet i read an article in

1937 with the economists said basically franklin roosevelt saved capitalism. and this has happened several times throughout our history when you see teddy roosevelt did this, and franklin roosevelt and others, where at moments of tremendous instability, which actually is inherent in capitalism because you do have a wealthy class created inevitably which is not a bad thing. it would be a very good thing, but oftentimes if the disparity gets really great or if we go through the boom and bust periods which happens with capitalism, you know, as you get more risk and you build up assets and you've got the wealthy other sort of speculating whether it's a housing boom here or tech boom there, and you will have the booms and busts. and when the middle class, lower classes, the majority of people in this country, become

desperate, when there is no safety net, and you see the government have to step in, oftentimes this country has been very good at creating the stability that capitalism needs to survive and flourish. if you allow the disparity to increase and you don't have jobs and you don't have opportunity, not equal outcomes, but opportunity for the wide swath of american citizens, you create instability that can result in riots, and ultimately even revolutions. we've seen in other countries. 1910 was sort of the socialist moment in the sun, and that was a time when the workers of this country, that was sort of the sinclair era in the jungle, the workers were getting desperate.

you have to teddy roosevelt smart enough to go, you know, i love corporations and other big businesses, but this is a moment when we have to take action like the anti-sherbet trust act, other things, you begin to regulate, to modulate the concentration of wealth and power. so we look at moments in time where we are increasing government participation come we are increasing social safety nets, there are bad things about but they're good things. you don't overdo it, be it the bureaucracy or handing out checks, but understand that stability, economic opportunity, ability to earn a paycheck, and then, of course, by the consumer in this country, all of these things are necessary for capitalism to flourish. for small, medium businesses,

entrepreneurs, innovation, all of that must have that kind of social setting. so again, act of violence. madison, james madison going got to have both a liberal voice and the conservative voice to keep things balanced. so as i was working on the book, one of the things that hit me as we were looking at her current predicament, was what has gone wrong? what has brought us to this point? and almost all of the issues that we were concerned about revolve around the economy. i don't care what utah national security issues or education or immigration, or the obvious, where are the jobs, tax issues, all of these sorts of things, it's all in economic conversation. so i went back to adam smith, wealth of nations. interesting published in 1776 right along with the declaration of independence. and i thought i want to go back to the principles of capitalism because my gut is telling me

that has gotten really skewed in this country. and that may be part of the big problem we are having with creating jobs, with expanding economic opportunity, and with the growing disparity between the well-to-do and even the middle class, and certainly the poor in this country. and in reviewing him, it was like a lightbulb coming up. it was adam smith wrote wealth of nations in response to the events in britain, he was british. i was going on over there, the big corporations, the dutch in the cup because of the customary to government. the government was in the military around the world to protect resources, they were off to india or taking care of problems in the colony to protect it for big business.

and those two entities were married, and what it did was suppressed or eliminated the broad economic opportunity that adam smith actually thought would boost a nation's production and resources and revenues. and so in his book, he talks about how to expand that opportunity for everyone and headline, big warning, watch out for the concentration of wealth and power into a small elite class. because that, in fact, is as destructive of capitalism as an overbearing tyrannical government. he called, i was used the term corporations, but he called the big corporations unaccountable sovereigns. my conversation here is not class warfare. it does not announce

corporations. i mean, if capitalism was supposed to increase the standard of living for people here and around the world, it has done so without debate. but we've got to remember his caveat, because they apply as much today as the moment he wrote them, and that is anytime you have that kind of concentration, you are skewing the ideal of free markets. you are skewing their pricing. you are skewing all of the essential elements of capitalism, and we know this. in a big corporation can come into a community and demand that the state and local government pay for the roads and sewers, we know already they can reduce prices because the taxpayers are picking up everything there. we know that they're getting sales-tax wait for 10, 20 years if you just come into our

community. they have lowered it there. we know that whether it be pollutants in the air, or other costs of doing business, that they have been able to basically neglect or put onto the taxpayers to repair. in essence, they have skewed the system of capitalism. and even friederich hayek, margaret thatcher, ronald reagan, one of their favorite economic philosophers wrote "the road to serfdom." he said if you don't have their pricing, a few were to allow these hidden cost, this is not capitalism. it even hayek said you've got to have the government in their balancing. back at us addicted the only entity big enough to counter the big concentration of wealth and power is the government, the people's government. not a monarchy, not a tyranny, but the people's government. you have to regulate the really big guys so that the middle

sized, small businesses, individuals, entrepreneurs can flourish in this broad-based economy. i'm not talk about overregulating. i'm talking about rational regulations. and so when i realized reading adam smith and tracking it through the present day that hamilton basically began to institutionalize a more corporatist system in this country as our economy. and sure enough, when you start reading through history, senator henry clay who is handling the economy for abe lincoln in 1854 said america has never had free trade. give me a break. never. and you sort of track it through, and you see, and it's inevitable that in a capitalist environment you may have real dynamos and begin to earn the money and you build it up, that's great.

and anyone in this country that including the people that are down to doing occupy wall street, we want jobs, we want the american dream, we want the opportunity to make money and grow and do all of us. nothing wrong with that. it's when the concentration becomes so great that it begins to manipulate and skewed the economy and skew the market and reduce the opportunity for a broad base in this country that we begin to see damage. and today, the reason that i think that it is so necessary to relearn this, is there is a new piece of the puzzle. and that is, in 1910 or sort of the gilded age, corporations could be big and powerful and the rockefellers and the carnies come when they made a lot of money, even if the balance was skewed, the money stayed and

circulated in this country. even if they were sort of influence in washington getting things their way, we were still exchanging currency here. now those same guys are playing and what i call the global ether, the very same companies, the names have changed, but the same companies now are seeking policies on capitol hill that will help them in china or india, around the world. they may be flagged in the states, although many of them are in bermuda or elsewhere, but, in fact, their interests, much of the revenues, not only their plants but now you're seeing their research and development is moving overseas. and, therefore, if we continue to bolster their interests, then we are bolstering the interests

of entities that are not concerned with the well being of the domestic economy. with the american economy. and when i say this again, i'm not talk about the wealthy being union workers are welfare moms. i'm talking about the united states of america, its economy on the global playing field. and so many of the policies in the last several decades, the financial industry, the wall street conversation, and beyond are helping big multinational, transnational entities who are no longer concerned if we are doing the things in this country to build innovation or expand our infrastructure or educate our kids to provide them the workers. because they are making their money someplace else.

and if we want to restore this country and restore capitalism as it was originally contemplated, and as he intended to expand economic opportunity, lifting all boats, making everyone more money, including a wonderful, wealthy class in this country, we have to remember those caveats, and understand the effect of globalization. i mean, we have to, conservative and liberal alike, go back to the three-legged stool of sort of innovation and economic opportunity, education, infrastructure, legal immigration, the best and brightest calling them back to this country, incentivizing them to get educated here, to build their businesses here, to stay here. and understand how much of the

decision-making and policy making for decades now has in fact been helping events overseas and discouraging the building and sustaining of these amazing, you know, foundation, foundational elements of this successful republic. the reason i wrote the book is trying to take us all the way back, and then explain what those philosophies were, where you hit roadblocks, where they succeeded, and how we got to today. and get people to understand that the ideological messages that we are being told are the cornerstone of liberalism or conservatism. we must follow this little box, or we are not loyal to our philosophies, that that is nonsense, and we need to go back

to the amazing unity that the founders were able to find, for the moment, that mac republic, a level playing field, and then also understand the philosophies and principles that, on the one hand, fought for individual freedoms and liberties and a non-intrusive government, and the other policies, often conservative policy, that said we're going to build infrastructure of this country, we're going to educate our kids, we're going to use good business capitalistic principles to build this competitive nation. and the ideology of today does not support the principles and values that established and sustained this republic. it's in danger, and we need to be aware, and citizens, do

something about it. [applause] i know this group is certainly a political group. and i would love questions, because that's the only way i learn, i get feedback. so the microphone is right here. i know you all do this on a regular basis, and i would love for you to step up, and let's get some questions. >> catherine, that was a wonderful treat to get a history of our country, and for you to go back and go over this. have you taught courses? because you should. i mean, if you have the patience to do it, i don't know if that's what you desire to do. but it was really, is almost as if i was thinking this woman is a female, very attractive female newt gingrich. [laughter]

>> i'm sorry. i'm not sure if newt gingrich would appreciate that. no, that's a government. yes,. >> he is a historian. >> he is. and i think it's very important for people who are involved in politics today to have a grasp and a knowledge of what you have, and to know what happened in our history. now, i am a very conservative republican, so we kept talking about infrastructure and we need to build up infrastructure and schools and all that, i was hearing president obama because that's what he keeps talking about. and one problem with what you've been saying, and i agree with a lot of what you said, but the problem with president obama, for example, and i'm not trying to make a political statement, but i just do we talk about infrastructure and building schools, i believe in the same thing but i think the problem today is that what these

politicians are telling us they want is really they are lying to us. i don't feel that president obama, if he gets another stimulus package and he taxes the rich more, that he will take that money and use it in a positive way. i think he's going to take that money and is going to give some to his friends, the unions, or is going to give some to the teachers, or is going to get some, you, to the people who are going to elect him. and as you said, i'm, that's what's been happening in our politics for centuries, and for our whole history. but i fear that now all of these things it sounds as if they are positive, if you are talking about then, are all upside down and they are being used in a very, i do want to be an alarmist our, you know, have a lot of drama, i think they are evil. i really do. i think all of this has been skewed.

it's the internationalists like, if i may say, george soros, that's how i see them, they want money, they want control of not just the united states, they are not thinking about the united states. they're thinking about the world. they want to control the world. and i don't think jefferson and adams and george washington were thinking about the world. i think they were thinking about the best interests of the united states of america, and i don't see it anymore. you carry -- cover a lot their territory be make you did, too. >> see what i can do. >> i mean, my question is, that -- >> i think the core of your question is really, so much of the core of the book are gonna write in the book, i still to this day so believe in our system of government. the founding, the republic, what we do to reap preserve the republic. and yet what always mess it up, the right and left, people. people. and yet the system really has a

lot of rules in which we can play it now, it's pretty flexible and you can have something succeed for 200 plus years and not have flexibility to adapt, it's flexibility. but we need to understand that when we expand our for one party or one president, and you see this. remember george bush, a lot of writing and conversation about the unitary presidency, a lot of executive orders, signing statements, things done where, when the republicans were in control of congress, we saw a guy, our guy is in office, we are going to it go. i keep reminding people in the book that if you do that, you are institutionalizing and acceptance of an expansion of power. the next guy and there might not be the guy you'd like it and guess what? he or she will, i promise you,

use that power as well. just why we've got to, as citizens, make both parties rein in themselves, hold back and respect the rules themselves so that the system is preserved, is, in fact. in that way if obama comes in, and believing there are people on the left is screaming you're abusing power that george w. bush gave you. you are not raining yourself in, and whether it is militarily or even sort of patriot act, a lot of issues, and it's because we've allowed one side to break the rules, the next site comes in as his you know what? we're not getting back that power. so again, the system is brilliant, but it's up to us to make sure that the human beings that cycle through play by those

rules. so right now, there's that mistrust of government. now, at the moment it's the democrats in the presidency. but you hear both sides. we don't trust our government anymore. but i go back to saying we've got an amazing system, we are not making the sides, both sides, played by those rules. now, in terms of sort of infrastructure, you're telling me you don't trust, they will use it. there are ways, there are plenty of ways. my god, they can legislate anything up there, believe me. to ensure that those dollars, those stimulus dollars are going with a need to be. >> do you know where the first stimulus when? do you have any idea where that money went? >> let's remind everybody, that first stimulus money was thanks to george w. it's not -- >> obama's first stimulus. i have no idea. >> it's kind of like republicans

really went after obama when he says we are point out the last out iraq and all of a sudden we hear this you know, you're endangering the country. guys, george w. bush signed an agreement with the iraqi government come we had to be out by then. obama doesn't get the credit that he shouldn't get the derision. that was george w. when we talk about stimulus dollars, it's both parties. that's what keeps them in the. it's both parties that have been manipulating and michigan, and to me in many ways helping a very select group. when you talk about george soros and worried about the sort of international conversation, you look at the five or six big investment bankers on wall street, recent study showed that 147 corporations basically controlled a majority of wealth on this planet. on the planet. not in this country. you know, talk about the george

soros' of the world, and many people think, that's the open society, a bunch of liberal agenda. that power is basically corporate power. when i say that, it can be used well. it can be very good for the world, but it can also be bad. and we allow the concentration of financial wealth and their pursuit of stock prices and big payouts for ceos and creation of a derivative world where we are not brick and mortar, you know, building things. they are not putting money in investment what used to be into things that will build the domestic economy, but they're basically creating a casino in which with a bunch of a button on a computer they are making profit betting both sides of the game and scramble around and producing nothing. they produce -- they are not, kind of a lawyers.

not producing much of anything, except throwing around computers numbers. that is to me a really big concern. and so you are being told that soros is the threat, any kind of concentrated wealth and power, particularly now on a global scale that is interested in a very tiny% back of doing well, and not at least stimulating the economic growth, they have consumers in this country so people can make money and spend money and keep the economy growing. then we are in real trouble. so i keep telling people, doesn't mean you're conservative or liberal but what they are telling you is you are appropriate list of positions today. because i challenge both the

democrats and republicans to defend those, given a political origins, history, study of economics and politics and how those positions have gotten us into this mess. i had a chance to talk to mitch mcconnell and listen to him in a very small group the other day, and at the very end i did ask him, i said, senator, what i'm hearing is the regulation, lower taxes, small government, and whether you disagree or agree, that's kind of what got us to 2008. ..

>> people will believe it, and they will quit thinking, and they'll buy the ideology, and that's a mistake for all of us. >> we also need term limits because we have people, and i don't think the founders ever envisioned that these politicians would be in power for all these -- i'll stop. >> a questioner comes up, i will address that. by george, i want to be able to vote, even if i'm going to vote for the same people over and over again, and then it's gotten so frightening that i begin to think, oh, maybe term limits. but until you realize that so much of the power on capitol hill is with the long-term staffers, the institution and not just the individuals in the front. and so where i come back down is unless we have i literally am supporting a constitutional amendment to ban corporate money in politics.

you can raise the amount that individuals can give. oh, my god, we're not going to allow people with more money just, all right? you get to give your ten bucks, and that's it. i happen to prefer public financing of campaigns entirely, but you cannot allow corporations to buy our politics, and that's what's going on. with the citizens united decision in 2010, i mean, the supreme court essentially legalized the corporations purchasing our system. and i assure you that's shot what the founders -- that's not what the founders believed in. and if you were to fix campaign finance reform and slow the lobbyist revolving door, we could fix so many problems. the conservative lobbyist jack abramoff has just come out with his new book, and in it, of course, he went to prison. he says let me tell you how i bought capitol hill, and don't kid yourselves, i bought capitol hill. and he said best thing i could

ever do is i'd walk into a congressman or a senator's office, and i'd find the staffers, and i'd say, you know, when you get tired of doing this stuff, come see me. you know, i'll have a six figure, seven figure job waiting for you. and the minute their eyes lit up, he knew he had 'em l. and he said not only would they say, i'd say jump and they'd say how high, but they'd bring me the hurdles. they'd say, you know, i'm going to -- here's what's going on in the office, don't you want to know about this? don't you want to influence this? and, again, he's a great conservative example. the whole system, the whole system is so corrupted by money. and i am fine if every representative of up there represents the people who put them there, red state, blue state, conservative, liberal, let's have the grand clash that the founders spended.

that's not what's going on, and the american people on both sides of the political system are being greatly disserved, and the system is being corrupted as a result. yes, ma'am. >> um, i agree with you on money. i don't know how you answer it. i mean, i'll just make the note that i don't know if anybody noticed it, but jon corzine, he had four lobbyists and himself who was a great lobbyist, right? because he knew everybody, to try to get special favor for his firm. but one of the good things about capitalism is the firm failed. the firm took too many risks, and it failed. i think it was great. >> i understand what you're say, you don't want people to be hurt. >> hey, he did it, he failed. so he didn't fail, he had four lobbyists, and until corporations are willing to say no more, it's not going to happen because, you know, it is the institution of lobbyists and

government. i'm not even sure, but it's the staffers, they sort of run things. and the politicians, their major objective is to get reelected, and the only way they get reelected is on money. i happen to agree 100% on term limits, but they're the ones who have to give it to us -- >> absolutely. >> it won't happen. one of the things that, you know, i think it's sad that, you know, and i'll mention two people on different sides of the aisle. i think we have a crisis of leadership here, and to me, ronald reagan was a great leader, and he knew how to get things done. and i'll even say this and hut me here, bill clinton got things done. so we have a crisis of leadership. and, um, i think that's what americans are looking for, but unfortunately, we don't see it. the other thing maybe you'd comment on because i don't think this has been historic in our country is one of the things that gets motion done in the

united states is cloture. you're not going to get 60 of anything. and you also have a president who doesn't use a veto. i actually think if we could let congress pass things, the president doesn't like to veto it because we'll have a discussion, right now we have nothing. >> i love what you're talking about. we had a really great system, and when i said things are going on to literally manipulate the system itself to favor one side or the other, and right now the impetus seems to be in the hands of the republicans. so i'm not saying, oh, democrats have never done that, but let's just take this present moment in time. the changes whether it's trying to the limit voting rights in this country, and there are some really dramatic attempts to limit voting rights in this country, of course, gerrymandering of districts, and both sides have been guilty of this. but, by george, we ought to have

independent because there was an interesting article i think i read on my phone in the car coming over here talking about whether or not it's a constitutional issue, that it's a deprivation -- >> [inaudible] >> absolutely. absolutely. and i remember i think it was tom coburn, senator from oklahoma, was talking to constituents, and he actually got booed when he said, you know, let's quit the name calling, the character assassination and fight them on policy. either our policies are right and we can win on policy, or we should lose. and that applies to both sides. so it's back to you bet, all of this insane 60 votes to get something to the floor and vote, gerrymandering of districts to guarantee, insuring that we have prevented millions of people from going to the ballots even though study after study, conservative institutions and liberal alike, you know, showed that voter fraud in this

country, i mean, they might come up with 20, 30, 50 cases over a long, extended period, and yet that is being as a rationale to prevent millions of people from voting, you know, i get that both sides want to win. but you don't do it by cheating, you do it by presenting the best policies for the american people, and you win on the merits. and when we allow that to happen, we are destroying the institution of our constitutional republic, and we're going to pay a price. >> i'll also say both on the democratic side and republican side sometimes you have to risk losing a primary to be a good general election candidate and to be a good, um, president or senator from your state or your country. and i'll leave it at that. >> that's right. because the american people, i think, both sides they want integrity. they want to know who a person is. and we know have, we've now

accepted the game of running to your primary voters, we're going to go really far to the left or far to the right, and then of course they're going to run to the center. or wait a minute, how can we possibly then know who these people are on either side? but it's a game, and we're tacit players in it when we allow it both as citizens, in the media, you know, with a giggle and a smirk everyone goes, oh, well, x or y's going to be coming into the center. and then we're shocked or surprised at some of the stuff that comes out of the white house or off capitol hill because we don't know who these people are. and so much of the problem when we're complaining, again, is we're allowing our team to skew the system. because our guys are in office, whichever side. rather than first respecting the

system knowing that we will all be okay, all of us if we respect the integrity of the system and we put that first, make both sides play by those rules and then may the best man or woman win. [applause] >> for more information about the author, visit her web site, criercommunications.com. >> well, mr. brown, you have just written a book. >> oh, yes. >> it is called "beating the odds: eddie brown's investing and life strategies." where did your life begin? >> well, it began in a small town in florida, rural florida 13 miles from orlando, apopka. so i was born to a 13-year-old

unwed mother in abject poverty. so what this book -- >> what year? >> i was born 1940. >> racist times? >> so it was during a time of segregation, so imagine this, i always say people cannot control the hand that they have been dealt at birth. so if someone had looked at my hand -- unwed 13-year-old mother, abject poverty, to running water, no he can terrorist, and to come there that to building a very successful management firm is really what the book is about. and also it's about building this successful business and how i went about it over the last 28 years. >> mr. brown, what are two or three things that happened in your life that's changed the course of your life? >> well, you know, i always look

at it as kind of forks in the road. the first fork, if i'd gone down that path, things would have been dramatically different than going down the other path. i had a very entrepreneurial uncle going up, lived a block away. he was in the moonshine business. so when i was growing up, i basically built three businesses between the ages of 11 and 13 -- >> moon shining? >> no, but i did spend a lot of time with my uncle in the moonshine business. now, fortunately, my mother came and got me when i was 14. she was then an adult. remember, she had me when she was 13, but then she was 27. she took me to allentown, pennsylvania, to live with her. so if that fork had not occurred, i'm afraid i would have gone down the wrong path. so, yeah, so there was a major fork. >> what about college? >> went to howard university

right here in washington, d.c., got my bachelor's in electrical engineering. many years later got a master's in electrical engineering from new york university. many years later got a mba, master's in business administration from indiana university graduate school of business. so what i did was built a foundation thinking that i was going to be in the technology world where i spent five years with ibm. but after getting my mba, i actually got very interested or more interested in the investment world. so i switched careers. and became, basically, a money manager. >> it's 2011, why did you write "beating the odds" published by wiley, now? >> fortunately, we were able to get a major publisher, they're positioning it in the business book category, and actually i had no interest, no plans to write a book. and it was actually lordell

lewis who's the widow of the legendary reginald lewis, one of the great, i would say greatest african entrepreneurs ever that encouraged me to write this book. so what she did was she got blair walker who she had commissioned after her late husband's death to write reginald's life story to call me. now, blair had a best selling book, "why should white guys have all the fun," reginald lewis' life story, and john wiley happened to be the publisher. so when blair told about my story and presented a proposal, they got very interested, you know, here's an african-american who's come from nothing to build a very successful business. so that's how it came about. >> eddie brown is the author of this book, "bea