congressman paul's son, senator rand paul. this is about an hour and ten minutes. .. >> in turn, most of the students who came to the student seminars

had first read "fountain head," and that's how they got into this, and i think you can say over the past six years that had usually begins with ron paul. that's with you get more people getting their first taste of libertarian ideas, and maybe then they move on to read ayn rand, cay toe policy -- cato policy studies or whatever, but people brought to the con cement of liberty and limited government by ron paul and his campaign. to me, it's clear he got more attention, more success, and more votes in this vote, 2012, than 2007-2008. i had voters ask why is that? i think, to me, the clear answer is not because he did anything different. he has not changed his views or

the way he presents them. what did change, i think, was the public policy environment in which he was talking. back in 2007, ron paul warned that an economy based on debt and cheap money from the federal reserve was note sustainable, but the economy was booming and nobody wanted to listen, and then after the financial crisis when he came back around 2011 to campaign again, they were listening. in 2007-2008, he talked # about the importance of sound money, and i knew libertarians who said what's the problem with the federal reserve? haven't they been maintaining the great moderation? by 20 # 11, everybody was willing to listen to criticisms of the federal reserve board. in 2007, he talked about overspannedding, how the republican party spent more than any president in history. republicans didn't want to hear that. by 2011, perhaps because there was a democratic president,

republicans were ready to hear that, and i think in 2007, ron paul talked about and listed military intervention, and at that time, republicans were determined to stand in lock step, say the surge is working, refuse to listen to criticism, and by 2011, republicans were even getting tired of endless wars issue and so i think all that was is what changed the context in which the second ron paul campaign took place and caused him to get more attention and voters. many of you know, there's headlines today saying ron paul ends campaign or ron paul suspends campaign. it's clear to me if you read beyond the headline, the campaign is not over. what he said is he's not going to go run expensive television ads in the lingering primaries that no one is paying attention

to. he'll do the things he's been doing, talking about the issues, giving speeches to thousands of college students, and his volunteers working hard in caucuses and the other places that delegates are actually selected so that's an interesting unfolding story that still is going on. how many delegates can ron paul get? but that doesn't really matter to us today because this book is not about ron paul's campaign. this book is about ron paul's revolution which is a broader topic than a specific presidential campaign brine is becoming the historian of the libertarian movement. he's written books on the burning manifest value and on the supreme court battle over the second amendment, both of whom have some libertarian content, and he more particularly wrote the book radicals for capitalism, a free wheeling history of the modern

american libertarian movement, which i declared at the encyclopedia blog is going to be the standard history of the libertarian movement for a long time. it's a massive work of research that will be the standard source for people studying this movement. brian doherty is senior editor of reason, been there for more than a decade, but most importantly, he started his career as an intern at the cato institute. [laughter] in fact, i think we had five interns that semester, and one was brian and was one was the distinguished scholar here in the front row. it's a good record for that year's intern class. doherty returned as the youngest managing editor of the magazine before moving on to other editorial projects. he's been covering ron paul

since 1999, obvious inzçf >> to this date, the last time i saw ron paul, both were events at large state universities. the first was at the university of florida when i was a college student in january 1988. he was running for president then too with the libertarian

party. i was a member of the university of florida college libertarians, and we had arranged a speaking engagement for ron paul at our campus, and we drew, i think, around 100 people, which excited the hell out of us. it was an amazing success. ten times as many people who came to any u.s. college libertarian event, but they were all there to examine a curiosity. it was not even 100 libertarians. it was, oh, third party presidential candidate, let's check it out. the greatest victory, you know, was getting a 600-word article in the school newspaper the next day, and afterwards, we took dr. paul, i believe to an i-hop. there's a picture of that somewhere. [laughter] it was the height of radical scruff my political activism. it was great. a few weeks ago, the last time, so far, that i saw dr. paul was also at a large state university out in los angeles when i now live. 7,000 people showed up to see

ron paul running for president again, this time with one of the major parties, and they wow -- they were not curiosity seekers or even there to learn. they knew what this guy had to say right and left. they were, you know, the instant the words initialed ndaa came out of his mouth, they were booing. the word "ben bernanke" they were booing. you know, afterwards rather than merely retreating to an article in the school paper, i was watching groups of them gather to talk about their congressional runs or their runs for the l.a. county g.o.p. central committee or some big well-attended event at their college campus they are going to throw or what they were writing on their website with 5,000 people reading it every day. the arc of the story from that first major college campus appearance to the latest one was actually truly dream-like in a

really weird way if you've been watching the story as long as i have, and it made me think a little bit about what's the best way to frame how ron paul did this? one of the things you hear a lot about ron paul is his rock solid consistency which is very true, and i realized to a certain extent, the ron paul phenomena works as well as it does because of four different almost paradoxical divisions that ron paul bridges, not to get english majory, but i'll talk about four of them quickly here tonight. one of them is he's a phenomena of real and impressive real world political success, yet one whose greatest achievements are to a large extent irrelevant to that political success. i think especially in the wake of the so-called drop out or pull back announcement, it's worthwhile reminding people of some of the objective measures of that political success, especially from 2008 to 2012. i mean, first of all, of course,

success as a congressman, a guy believing things that almost none of his other colleagues believed which leads to the dismissive comment you hear about the congressional career. oh, how many bills has he passed? if you're a guy who believes in the constitution in the u.s. congress from 1970-2012, you know, you're understandably not beginning to get a lot of bills passed. doesn't mean you're not a great congressman. from the 2008-2012 run, he managed to pretty much double his total, and he managed to more than double his percentage of the g.o.p. primary vote from around 4% to around 10% so far, and i think in the end, that figure will be higher with the other candidates out and i think even though he might not be running actively in texas or california, i expect his people will come out to vote for him in great numbers anyway. he has managed, you know, he raised $35 million last time

around, and by standard political terms didn't do anything with it. why? he didn't succeed. you think he might have burned out the fans. he did not burn out the fans. they gave that much and more this time which is interesting, but i think the comparative giving is more interesting. he gathered nearly twice as month as newt gingrich and sontorum combined. this guy has a base who is willing to give, and that's something very important in politics, and it's something that the g.o.p. is seeing, is having real effects. they are able and willing to do the nitty-gritty of politics and able and willing to run for central committee, able and willing to achieve positions of total power is not the right word, but positions of high authority in state parties from alaska to iowa. they are able to win delegations in caucus states, and they can

do that story of real world political success, and the analogies of the g.o.p. powers should keep in mind are the goldwater kids of the movement that gathered around a heroic, strongly anti-government figure who had written a best selling book and managed to surprise the establishment of the time with what they could achieve in the future. the recent analogy is the right, the libertarian wing that paul represents that may be outmanned in a majority rules way, but so passionate about the ideas they'll swing their weight in the g.o.p. beyond their apparent number. it is a story of real political success, but its true importance is not about that kind of political success, not about

vote getting or winning control of the g.o.p. precincts of the like. it is a continuation of the mission of the libertarian movement of which ron paul arose. he was educated to become the political thinker that he is by the works of the likes of hayek and the publication for education and always embraced leonard reed division of what intellectual and political change was about, which was about educating one mind at a time, and ron paul has used politics as the tool for that libertarian goal, and it's a tool if he asked me ten years ago maybe was not the best tool because he was merely this sort of obscure outliar in congress, but he's proven me 100% wrong by using the tool of major party electoral politics, one of the greatest educators for libertarianism of our time as david said, and it's not just

about politics. the other sort of gap that ron paul bridges i think is key to the appeal is the apock -- apocalypse ron paul who, the only politician willing to say that america is not necessarily the richest, freest, most wonderful nation in the world that just does right overseas, and if there's anything wrong, vote out the other guy and vote me and everything will be fine. in foreign policy terms, our behavior overseas is actually in some ways the behavior of a criminal empire in that we might want to consider we're earning enemies overseas by our behavior. he's willing to say, hey, the constant series of trillion dollar deficit spending is impoverishing us. it's not something we actually can continue. we can't just -- we can't just behave as we have behaved.

he's willing to point out we are facing serious, serious problems with our debt and fiscal crisis that are not going to go away by saying as mitt romney recently said, oh, we can't have a trillion dollar spending cut in one year like ron paul wants, why that'd shrink the economy. we can't keep thinking that way or think armed government agents will knock down our doors over raw milk or medical marijuana. he is a true prophet in that sense. he's willing to decry what america's become, and that doesn't happen in politics, and that scares people about ron paul. at the same time as he explained to me, how do you succeed with this message that seems full of doom and gloom? he pointed out and say, look, especially the young people i talk to, they see the hope in it because i'm not just saying everything is doomed and we don't know what to do about it. we know what to do about it.

we can return our government to its constitutional limits. we actually can spend less than we are. we actually can bring the troops home. you know, we sent them over, we bring them back. he paints an intellectually consistent vision of hope and way out of the apocalypse allowing him to win a hopeful enthusiasm even as he rightfully paints a very dark picture of where overreaching government has led us. the other interesting bridge that ron paul divides it he's the political figure and at the same time righter than right and more progressive than the progressives. he's the guy who actually says when most republicans line up behind paul ryan plan that will still be increasing our debt for decades, ron paul has a plan that says we could actually achieve a balanced budget and stop growing the debt in five years without raising taxes to do it. he is a guy who is actually

saying, hey, we talk about big government. we talk about government interfering in our lives. let's stop interfering in the lives of people who want to buy and sell raw milk or buy medical marijuana. we can do this. we can actually have a government that is a government conservatives want, but when confronted with ron paul, they are afraid of it. it's clear to me that ron paul ought to have been, you know, the tea party candidate by acclamation in the 2012 race, and it didn't turn out that way is not so much a fault of ron paul as a failure of will to be as conservative as they say they are on the part of the american right, and i think ron paul is clearly thee most conservative, consistently conservative candidate out there. at the same time, he's also, in many ways, a more progressive politician than president obama who is, unfortunately, the favorite politician of the progressive left such as it is. i mean, you have president obama

who has expanded the president's power as to unilaterally imprison and kill american citizens beyond george bush's attempt, and ron paul is the guy who gets 7,000 college students to boo a mere mention of the words "national defense authorization act" a bill signed by president obama. you have a president obama who has started new unauthorized wars, greatly expanded the civilian killing drone program, and presided over continuing gigantic defense budgets, bigger than any in world history, and ron paul campaigns, on the other hand, for peace and withdrawal of the u.s. military from the world. you have obama who wants to continue to expand every aspect on the war on drugs including medical marijuana, and paul thinks arresting people for action who harm only themselves is i'll legitimate. ron paul says to a crowd at the

republican debate that border walls are essentially un-american. on the wide range of issues involving atonmy and liberty and protecting people from concentrations of power, paul is more progressive than obama or nearly any other national political figure. i don't want to glide over the one point that makes progressives not like ron paul is that they love income redistribution and ron paul does not, and, in fact, i think ron paul is sort of a living, sort of rebuke to them in a sense that it sort of proves that they only care about income redistribution and they don't care about peace, civil liberties, and saving people from oppressive concentrations of power, but again, the default lies on the progressives, not in ron paul. the fourth divide that ron paul bridges that i think contributes to his success is he's both an incredibly intellectual politician with an emotional hold on his audience that i discovered as i met hundreds of

them over the course of researching this book. i mean, he is, as i've heard various people say, the only politician, you know, running for national office of whom we hear people say i heard ron paul, an i went out and read a bunch of books. you know, you're not going to hear that about obama or romney, and ron paul, not only does he write books, but they have bib i don't care mys pointing you in the directions of where his ideas came from. he leads you to meses, and johnson, and he's actually a genuine intellectual leader in modern america, but he would not claim himself that he's a great intellectual, but a great stay student of great educators and passioned about their ideas of generations. at the same time, for being as he is and even in his demeanor as he presents his ideas, he's

not a podium thumper. the guy is not selling emotion. i think there's a great emotional context to what he says about the richness of liberty. i was especially interested to note in more recent talk talks i heard him said, and when ron paul talks, it's more obvious if you hear him talk, he doesn't have notes or a speech. he has a set of ideas about liberty that he wings ease gets through. he's been talking a lot in a sophisticated way about the sheer richness of a human life lived according to its own desires and its own choices. there's something philosophically important not about what specific thing you may choose to do with your life, but by the fact that you are allowed to actually choose to craft your io dentty and how you're going to move through the world, and i see this moving his

audiences on a very sophisticated level, and by being so intellectually consistent and so thoughtful, so bookish in his way, he's managed to inview hundreds of thousands of fans with an emotional attachment to that is a little bit to him, though, i do want to stress that there's it's called a personality. it's to mim -- him because he's the embodiment to them of the public lives of the ideas that moved him. ron paul is not a leader in the sense that he could tell his troops where to turn or tell the troops what to do. he's only a leader in the sense he's helped introduce people to a set of ideas that they have groin to hold a great feel to, and if ron paul told the people to reject the ideas, they are going to reject ron paul, not rejecting the ideas. that emotion is going to carry this movement long beyond the

2012 election cycle, long beyond whether he's dropped out, withdrawn, or whatever we want to say about his most recent actions. they are going to continue to work within politics. they'll continue to work within media, both distributed and non-distributed. it's a point worth noting that the single, most heard answer when i asked ron paul people the question how did you get into this was a youtube video. they wouldn't necessarily remember what youtube video it was, because by that appointment they probably saw 200 of them and made 100 of them. [laughter] it was that districted non-controlled means of humans making art and making culture and distributing amongst themselves is the key why the revolution has been able to succeed. the ideas are the same. ron paul saided same thing for

30 year, and part of why they are ringing truer now is the objective conditions of reality making it more obvious that ron paul was right about things like the federal reserve and blow back and the like, but another reason is the means of communicating those ideas have become decentralized and widespread, and while this may be the last year for ron paul as a national political figure, i -- the reason why i wrote the book is because i'm convinced it's try that 15-30 years down the line looking at the elections of 2008 and 2012, the most important thing about them, any historian recognizes will be about ron paul ran for president, and the ron paul revolution was launched. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, brian. we have an excellent commenter today on the book and on ron paul's revolution. i published some evidence

recently at the cato institute blog that my native state of kentucky is the least libertarian state in the country. imagine my surprise when rand paul emerged from an office in little town of bowling green to defeat first the secretary of state and then the attorney general and win a state in the united states senate. both his republican and democratic opponents ran pretty negative campaigns against him accusing him of all manner of extreme libertarian views, some of the accusations were actually true. >> i never admitted to any of that. [laughter] >> the voters wanted a change in washington, and they elected him by a comfortable margin. he was perhaps the most authentic tea party winner of 2010, which is why he then wrote a book called "the tea party goes to washington," and since he got to washington, he

tanglinged with the tsa, proposed a budget that's actually balanced, drawn rave reviews for efforts to reign in the patriot act, and he's been denounced as a lib tear exes treemist by -- libertarian extremist by national review. what else is new? they do that every now and then. we couldn't have found a commenter who knows more about ron paul or have more of a stake in the future of ron paul's revolution. please welcome the junior senator from the commonwealth of kentucky, home of the eight time national champion of the kentucky wildcats, senator rand paul. [applause] >> i want to congratulate brian doherty on his book. it's a revolution, it's a movement. it's part of the libertarian movement, but it is something

bigger than one person. my dad would be the first to admit the movement is not just him. he realizes there's something bigger, and, you know, he's fopped of saying in the crowds that freedom is popular. it brings people together no matter what walk of life you're from, what you do, what your personal background is, what your lifestyle is, it brings people together if government stays out of people's afires. this is a young crowd. anybody go see "the -- the grateful dead? i never got into a concert, but i got to the parking lot one time. they used to say i have three in cincinnati, two in detroit or whatever. they were planning ongoing to the next concert, and what reminds me of the ron paul revolution in many ways, but people, i would see people -- a man in orlando last week said i saw you in iowa in ankeny in the ron paul headquarters.

there's people from all walks of life, all over the country working together in the headquarters. it struck me that when you go to a ron paul rally, it was not everybody in suits and ties. it was not the chamber of commerce. you might see somebody with a tattoo or a grateful dead t-shiers, but it was different. it was different in a better way i think. people from all walks of life were there. he did make the message of freedom popular. now, david talked about how people came in, come into the libertarian movement, ron paul movement by reading ayn rand, and i had nature and nurture. i was probably born a libertarian, but i read ayn rand's novels and enjoyed them in high school. you see people in a way afraid of ayn rand now, but because you like the individual, doesn't mean, oh, gosh, i endorsed every word in every book, but people are phrase. one the funniest lines i saw was

paul ryan's said he was a fan of atlas slugged, and there was a blog post says ryan shrugged, backing away from. so many cool things happened in the revolution. you hear the revolution song? look it up. she's great. she came and performed live when they did the minneapolis rally at the same time as the republican convention. she came and performed for me, and in january of 2010, and just bringing coolness that you were not seeing anywhere else. you didn't have many candidates get on the stage, probably haven't had any before, and may not have had any since when asked about the war and asked about how to end it saying we just marched in, we can just march out. couldn't be any simpler than

that and you had a guy who would go to the debate in miami that's a latin-american sponsored debate and say we need to end the trade embargo. castro's been there 35 years, and he's not going away. he talked about blow back, and i believe in the south carolina primary in 2008, he said that, and he was not certain how people would respond, but interestingly, there was a lot of negative response, but there was a whole new positive response of all of these new people, and i keep trying to convince the republican party, you may not like everything he's presented, but at least appreciate your electorat's getting bigger. welcome the ron paul people because they are people who have been unhappy with both parties or been libertarians or the constitution party or independent party, but they are coming in, and you need a bigger party. one thing you may never hear again in a republican debate is

he said at one point it doesn't say blessed are the war makers. it says blessed are the peacemakers. will you hear another presidential candidate say that? i don't know. it was impressive to me. there is a continual battle, and the battle goes on. there have been things we continue to fight. we fought the patriot act and got more no votes than ever before. it's a growing number of people concerned about the fourth amendment, and i said over and over to people both in my campaign as well as when i got here is that you have to believe in all of the bill of rights, you know, so many conservatives love the second amendment, their second amendment rallies and groups. there's not enough fourth amendment rallies and groups. you can't have the second amendment if you don't believe in the first amendment. you can't have the second amendment if you don't believe in the fourth amendment. i think there is a growing movement. i think there's a movement

within the republican caucus that is becoming more libertarian. there's people no longer afraid of it. i say that the term "conservative" got used up by people who were not conservative. we had the conservative president who doubled the debt with the republican congress. it's worse now, but it was going in the wrong direction under a republican administration so the term "conservative" became of less value in the term "libertarian" became of more value. we had the fights on the defense authorization agent. we didn't win, but we got close to some victories. one amendment, diane feinstein introduced was to say that citizens would not be able to be held indefinitely or sent to the united states to guantanamo bay. at one point in time, she was going to withdrawal the amendment. mike lee and i sat there and said, no, once an amendment's introduced, you have to have unanimous concept to pull it back, and we said no. that's unusual. usually if an author wants to

pull an amendment, you just let them out of curtesy. we said no, we got it out there, and we have to vote. we still almost won, but they introduced a watered down version of it, and we lost 55-45, but 45 people at least you believed you shouldn't send a u.s. citizen from here to guantanamo bay. interestingly, two hours later, there was another vote, and they were voice voting everything. by nine o'clock, every senate needs to think they have to get back on oxygen or whatever. [laughter] it's bedtime. it's nine o'clock, and they are voice voting everything. a vote comes up i've been watching, and the amendment said if you're found innocent in an article iii court in the united states of being accused of terrorism and found innocent, that you could still be sent indefinitely to guantanamo bay, not that you don't have a jury found, you have a trial, found innocent, and you are still sent to guantanamo bay. they were trying to convince me

both the democrat leader and republican leader telling me they didn't like it, but it's like let it go through, we'll pull it out in the conference committee. you know, i looked back at the staff, and they were pointing, and i went back, and i said we have to have the vote. i asked for a voice vote, and on that voice vote, first time i was actually surprised, and they were. carl levin with was me, 51 democrats voted know, and eight or nine republicans. 59 votes, and it was horrendous, and carl levin says but it's the law. i said if it's the law, it's awful that you are found innocent in this country and kept in prison forever. if that's the law, that's awful. let's have a recorded vote. we did, and we won. out of the ron paul revolution, you have new people elected all the time.

we have a guy running in northern kentucky who could be one of the top five. there's a republican seat, and he's close to or at the top. interestingly, a young man, who i don't think i met or thomas met, but the candidate is thomas massey with a good chance of winning. he's 21 years old from texas put a half million dollars into a super pack supporting thomas. he was a liberty loving young man who went to the ron paul rallies and things, but he got involved in the race in a big way and will help him. that race is a week from today, if any we win that, there's another libertarian up here. i think the attitudes of people are changing. i think within our caucus, i see some change, the ron paul revolution is having an effect, even on people who are already up here, people who have always said they were conservative are now saying they are libertarian. in our caucus, we debate and

some are lamenting that some of us are not so gung ho to put boots on the ground everywhere or go to war without a declaration of war or at the very least, a vote in congress. we still don't have enough, but when a introduced the bill, president obama said no president should unilaterally go to war without the authority of congress. sounds basic. it's basically what the constitution says. i introduced his exact words to see how people would vote, and we got a vote. we got 10 votes for the words, ten republicans. not one democrat voted saying that congress should have anything to do. recently, there was a committee hearing and panetta was there, and they asked panetta, they said, you know, what about going to a war with syria or iran or both of them, and he said, well, if we do, we'll get permission from the united nations. they said, and he said, well, we will consult with nato, and they

said -- they said, well, we're probably inform congress of what we're doing, we might. there was no definite, no act it was going to occur before the action occurred that congress was prolife rail. that was our fault. not only that as far as being of almost of no value and not engaged at all in foreign policy, but it's the same with regulatory policy or any policy. the unlegislated pure -- bureaucracy runs the place. no one asserts themselves. that's the biggest challenge we have. the ron paul revolution is helping us go the right direction. brian's book will be a great value to popularize this, and i hope the ron paul revolution becomes a best seller. [applause] >> thank you senator paul, both

speakers were con size, so there's time for questions. let's open the floor up to questions. please wait to be called on, and please wait for a microphone to come so we can hear you, and please give us your name aany affiliation you have. are there any questions? over here. >> thanks, john with the american conservative. what about the left? are the younger people on the left coming into this? can you reach the left? we -- everything you talked about is great, but is there a future of bringing in a new party or new movement? what about the left, ect.? >> i'll give a very individualist answer to that. i mean, yes, i know for a fact that the ron paul movement revolution has succeeded in winning over many people from the left.

i met and talked to many of them. there is as of yet no hard core social science research on the ron paul movement, so i can only sthai i met a bunch of them, and, you know, a bunch of them say they have friends so it is possible, and the anti-war wedge, you know, was always what pulled them in. i mean, by being the guy that was consistently and radically appty war, he was able to win them over from the income redistribution issues that i mentioned earlier, definitely still an enormous barrier for them. when the occupy wall street movement was hot and heavy, congressman paul was of the only candidate who was actually willing to grant that, yeah, they had grievances that were real, the problems of crony capitalism is real and liked engaging with him, and fans tried to engage with them, and they were not well-received. in one case, i think it was in

philadelphia -- i shouldn't tell this story -- in a rather gross act of violation of personal space occurred on the ron paul people's tent involving human excriminate left behind. that's the worst edge of what the leftists think of the ron paul people in their midst, but the ron paul people were willing, ready, and able to try to engage them where they lived op trying to explain the difference between free markets and what we've seen with the bailouts and t.a.r.p. and tried to explain, you know, the connection between peace and small government, and it's won over individuals, and i don't see much signs it's winning over the left as an organized entity, and to the extent that the left is an organized entity feels connected to the democratic party. it's going to be even trickier, but one-on-one, drip by drip, ron paul's message can succeed

in winning over like this. >> i'd like to add to that a little bit about what david said originally libertarians get together and say, oh, i came to it because i read ayn rand. when you talk to the ron pale people they say how did you get there? some is ayn rapid or i came from the left or right. you hear people ask that question. did you come from the left or right? i think more than the vast majority are probably from the right because we're obviously in a republican primary, but there's new people coming in from the left also, and i think some of them are converted on some of the other issues, but they came in primarily on the war issue. it also gets back to whether romney can hold those people and get them to vote. it wouldn't be enough for ron paul to endorse them. they are real individualists who will vote for romney if they heard romney is wanting to audit the fed or heard romney is reluck at that particular --

reluctant or has constraint with war or interested in continuing the draw down and the end to the afghan war, which a lot of conservatives are now in favor of. the left leaning people who came to the ron paul movement are or could vote for the republican nominee if they were hearing some of those things. >> i want to add a quick sentence to that. i actually have noticed an article in the future is the issue of reason about this is the way ron paul, himself, delivered the message, particularly this go around, has been in a way that i don't think deliberately, but in a very real way should be able to appeal to a progressive leftist for various reasons i will explain in a later piece of writing, and i think -- i know he's mindful of it in fact. i heard one, oh, that's interesting, a bunch of progressives interested in what i have to say right now, and i think in the same way it interests him, if you're interested in the libertarian movement at large, you should be

thinking about that question. >> okay. take a microphone right here. >> i'm eric, here on my own accord. the question has to do with an article written this morning discussing barry goldwater with the efforts in the 06s taking about 20 years for his efforts, barrygoldwater's efforts in the 60s to turn into the reagan revolution in the 80 #s. question specially would be ron paul's effect nowadays, do you think that the republicans can learn anything quickly, and if so, how? >> i'll take this one. not super quickly, like i don't think this go around, i think the resistance if you followed what was going on at the g.o.p. state conventions in oklahoma and arizona over the weekend, resistance is real, and in some cases physical. you know, the romney people are hitting ron paul people.

i don't think this is the year it's going to happen, but this is rooted in the notion that i think ron paul is actually correct about a lot of the things he says about fiscal crisis and debt crisis and debt crisis. from that frame work i have to think that some political party has to come around on this or the alternative is a little bit too terrible to contemplate, and i do think that the forces of objective history and sort of changing attitudes are more on the libertarian wing of the republican party side than the rick santorum side. they are becoming less popular, libertarian issues that are becoming more popular, and so i do believe for everything we've seen, all the new candidates, some of which senator paul mentioned, it does seem clear the republican party will be a

more ron paul like party down the line, and i think it needs to happen pretty fast, but it's only beginning this year. >> my comment would be it needs to be much more quicker than from goldwater to reagan or goldwater to now because we face a much more serious and inmat crisis. when the banking crisis occurred in 2008, i think of that as two plus two didn't equal four, but a million. a panic is when math doesn't add up and things get out of control. i talked to people lately they are concerned we could get 2008 on steroidses coming out of europe, a con they onspreading throughout the world. you say, oh, that's too dire. i don't know if it is or isn't and i don't know the future, but i worry about that, but that's why it's important that if we believe in limited government that we have people in place should a crisis occur, should the destruction of the currency happen in a more rapid fashion

rather than a slow fashion that we have people preaching that, and the example i use is one that people say, oh, you're trying to scare people, i'm not really, but it has happened we destroyed currency, and out of that, you get something really bad. in the 1920s, germany destroyed their currency and legislated elected hitler. you worry what comes out of the destruction of currency. do they choose a strong leaders that says give me your liberty and i'll give you security or do we have people who love liberty and say there's another way to come out of this and that involves free markets and the individual. it's good to be in the place even if something bad does happen and change the direction of the country so that we don't go in the wrong direction. >> yes, here and then go ahead and take a microphone up to the back. >> ken meyer, court world, getting back to mr. paul's

anti-war stance, does he plan to commemorate the upcoming nato summit in chicago? >> i don't know. >> not that i know of, and that strikes me as not the sort of thing he tends to do so i'll say probably not. >> [inaudible] >> yeah. i don't know. >> not his usual style i would think. yes, in the back row. >> hi, jason, center for competitive politics. question for brian. do you have an opinion looking at 2012 and the next four years over, you know, which presidential victory, say it's romney or obama, which victory, if any, would be better for this sort of small incubating liberty or ron paul movement or any difference at all? >> i had to think about this morning talking to reporters. i have a freshest answer. yesterday, i didn't have an answer for reasons i can want articulate. i'm pretty convinced obama wins

re-election, and i cannot defend that. i said it on the record. get back to me about it. since the vehicle in which this is happening now, it's better if romney wins and is as bad as the libertarians expect him to be allows for a convincing primary challenger to really make very real to the party that there are two wings of the party fighting for supremacy, you know, 2341906 the rockefeller wing versus the goldwater wing, and nap it's the romney wing versus the paul wing, not to place particular weight on the paul -- [laughter] that strikes me that that in, you know, my grand historical vision of puppet mastering, but showing the party they can't deal with more people like romney might be great. >> do you want to comment? >> a good question to have no comment on for me.

[laughter] >> all right. i have a different question for you, senator. why are you wearing what looks like a red cent? >> there was a louisville tea party in my race that handed these out. it's a penny -- you can get one for a dollar. [laughter] it's just a penny that's painted with red fingernail polish, and the motto was not red cent more. >> our swedish libertarian friends used to have a picture of a croner or whatever cut in half signifying their desire to be allowed to keep half the money they earned. [laughter] yes, right there. then the gentleman just behind him. >> thank you, gentlemen, for your time. your antidepressant note -- -- >> microphone up to your mouth please. >> first time i met the senator

was when i spilled oatmeal on him as an intern there. [laughter] your use reconcile and how you neon use the word. it's difficult to have that constitutional value, and i was curious. >> sure. the main reason i use it just reporting on a phenomena, calls itself that, you know, the ron paul grass roots began using that term and that local that a-- logo that appears in early 2007. the main answer is i call it that because of the phenomena i'm reporting on calls itself that, but -- and so i have not thought hard about whether that's an act term. i'm going to think out loud a little now that you've asked me. i do think that it's an apt term, especially in the linguistic meaning of revolution

as revolving, and i didn't think i talked about the constitution much, but i should. it's key to paul' appeal to people is the notion he's trying to turn us back to the root notions of constitutional liberty and a constitution thally limited government that they believe america started with, and you can argue a, and i'll listen to arguments about how much hard core libertarian should feel to the constitution, and i'm sympathetic to arguments against it, but it would be a great improvement to return to that conception of the constitution and to roll back to it and than involves for the meaning of revolution, a severe and radical change and government, it would be a change as well. i think the term is apt on those levels. >> you know, i'd say if you got to know and around the campaign

at all, it was different than any other sort of campaign because it really, revolution may or may not be the word. the way we can win is to have a blimp, and everybody thought that was a stupid idea. they got a blimp and did it anyway. people said let's fly, and the radiology doctor in new york put on his building, google ron paul, and when you take off from kennedy, you see that, google ron paul in 10-foot letters. they said the campaign ads suck, and we're doing on our on youtube. a lot of creative stuff came out of the youtubes and the things they did, but it was really sort of a movement, and they didn't like it -- because they were libertarian, individuals, they didn't like being told what to do. they did what they wanted to do, and it made it an interesting campaign. i don't know if they were right

or wrong, but they did it anyway because they were going to do what they wanted to do, but it was more interesting than a typical campaign. >> the tea party was mentioned in different contexts, and it seemed like that was a movement that had origins in the 2008 campaign, supportive of the senator east run in kentucky in 2010, but since then, it went off in a different direction, not necessarily, you know, opposite the movement that the ron paul's revolution followed, but somewhat different, and, you know, it was very disturbing to me in any way, an observer to see exit polls, and to see romney getting the vast majority of the tea party support that seemed completely off topic, and so i wonder from your work on the book and just being with the campaign if you can give us a

different perspective what you think happened there, and if it's possible to bring the folks that are sympathetic to the tea party back into the fold so to speak. >> i'll quickly address the question of the qex between, you know, the ron paul 2008 and tea party movement. as a matter of intellectual history, i think it's very fair to say that the sense of a notion of a transpartisan seriously shrinking government movement that attached itself in the tea party that all started with ron paul no november 16th, 2007. the problem with intellectual history though is people don't know intellectual history, and having said that, i'll also say most of the people who began coalescing in 2009 around that term didn't necessarily know that, and they were not necessarily acting out of the same impulses that the original ron paul rooted tea party movement came from so it's both fair to argue that, yes, ron paul invented the modern tea party and also fair to argue

that ron paul didn't really have a lot to do with the modern tea party, and, yeah, like you said, i was disstressed as heck to see the tea party identifying people being for romneys, and it struck me, and i have written this that logically by political logic the tea party should have been in ron paul's pocket and the other problem is that lots of people are not logical about their politics. senator paul has identified himself with the tea party in a way that perhaps he might want to address if he agrees something has gone wrong. i felt on the trail in 2011-20 # 12 that i was not feeling there was a lot of continued feel to that notion or that identification, certainly not around the ron paul world. i was feeling that the tea party as labeled has been less of a story in 2012 than i expected it to be. he might have a different take on that. >> brian's right.

the first tea party was 2007. i was there, it was in the boston, and we called it a tea party, and other tea parties came around in 2008 -- did they start in 2008 or 2009 to get big? 2009 actually -- yeah because in 2009 i was beginning to think about running, and i was at my son's baseball game, and i went to gave a speech, and there were 7 had u people. that was 2009. it had origins and roots in the 2007-2008 campaign for my father. i would say, and i always say there's two things that i think got the tea party started, two issues. people unhappy about obamacare and then people also unhappy about the bank bailouts, but going around that movement also was a harkening back to rules, the rules being the constitution limited government, and so when people say, oh, the tea party's dead and it's not doing

anything, it's an amazing victory that we have gone from no one questioning the constitutionality of laws for 60 or 70 years for the most part, particularly in the public and supreme court, to taking obamacare all the way to the supreme court. when they first started, pelosi was incredulous there was a case. it was not summarily dismissed as liberals predicted, and you had conservative justices saying that inactivity's not commerce, and if we regulate inof the, we can -- inactivity, we can regulate anything. no limits on what government can do. by your thinking about buying something in commerce and making the decision not to buy it, that you your thought process engaged in commerce, and that might be a stretch, but you got those competing influences, but the fact that we're having that discussion is amazing, and i think we're going to win in june, but i think the tea party was around the bank bailouts,

some of the same anger that people have had in the wall street move. , but it also was about obama care and also about the constitution, some about the tenth amendment movement mixed in there, and when it got to presidential poll takes, they didn't have a firm opinion on foreign policy, and 10 they broke the same way republicans have been breaking. it is a libertarian, less interventionist, more restrained foreign policy is at best 20%-30% of the republican primary, but maybe as low as 15%-20% of the republican primary so when the tea party breaks up and decides and think other people are acceptable because of foreign policy, a lot of the tea parties are more traditionally conservative, they broke from ron paul in the issue that the way republicans did. >> i want to add something to that really quickly because i found to my surprise on the trail in iowa and new hampshire how many republicans not ron paul people quite liked ron paul when you talked to him, but he

was just not their candidate, and overwhelmingly why he was was a sort of stigma that surrounded their thoughts about ron paul that he was too weird, too out there, just a little too much. i think one of the most important things that comes from ron paul coming into the convention with even -- if not winning with, you know, 600 delegates rather than 400, if he established himself as not a weird outliar but the runner up, the guy who fought until the end, didn't win, but the guy who was like the number two choice for the republican party, and just that marking, i think, is going to do a great deal to change the mind of a lot of republican voters because it's never that they hated him or thought he was wrong. it's just that they thought he's -- we -- it's not just to be for ron paul, and that helps show -- and there's more precinct captains when they are ron paul people, oh, you're the chair of the committee, you're a ron paul guy? cool. that makes him acceptable in a

way that he hasn't been not because of the idea, but the weird culture and strangeness that is dispersing. >> all right. let's take a question here and then christian take a mike up to nick for the next question. >> hello. i'm cammy, and i'm the pakistani specker, and i'm interested in the iran issue. i met congressman ron paul by chance at the rnc national republican committee, and he's too honest to be a congressman. how can he imagine being president of the united states of america? [laughter] saying that, he should be thankful to jesus. [laughter] my question is that how can he -- how can he become president of the united states when he doesn't want involvement in countries like iraq and afghanistan. doesn't he understand there are so many jobs that are created

because of our involvement in those countries? honestly, it's not realistic, his views are very, very honest, but they are very simple. thanks. .. what people actually want, not, you know, the making of munitions or the building of trillion dollars buildings and barack. if the government is now moving the jobs around, then the jobs

created reflect what people actually want to do with their wealth, not the weird imperial power dams that washington chooses to do with their wealth. of course, it is going to be adjustments, but it will be an adjustment that will be a world that is richer in the end because more people are actually getting what they want, not what washington decides they should have. >> and i would on that also, in the marketplace 300 million people get to vote on whether want to spend the money. and government a select few do. we are going to have government, but the whole jeffersonian idea is to minimize what they do because what they do takes money away from the productive sector. some most of us who believe in very limited government to acknowledge we should only have the bare minimum of what we need because then i am deciding where your money is spent. if i leave it in years -- of the visit your party will decide. government is not very productive. for example, we spend

$600 million to dead people. we don't do a very good job. do you have to have some people to protect your country to the military and the army? yes. what we do should always sort of be minimized because then we are taking it and voting on how to use it, and we don't use it as effectively as the marketplace is it. so what they're not that is now you are not, the other argument would become even if you believe that governments should be creating jobs by doing things, we are spending more than that trillion dollars we don't have each year. it's not even really real money or real assets or savings that we are sending overseas. and we do have a lot of things at home, even if you acknowledged government will do certain things, we have to bridges in my state that are over 50 years old and need to be replaced. one of his famous lines was we simply bombed bridges over there and then rebuild them while ours are falling down here. puts it kind of in a concise sentence where we have problems. ultimately the argument is

private sector is more productive than the private sector. we should always minimize how large the public sector gets. >> i. now gillespie. i know you are a big comic baird. you have also talked about how ron paul is producing the next generation of libertarians. could you talk a little bit about what produced sam and, was a bit by radioactive -- something. senator paul, could you talk a little bit about what it was like to grow up with rand paul -- ron paul as your father? was the libertarian parent? if so, is that a good thing or bad thing. >> i -- i think you and i have talked about this. i have been a little scoffing at stories that try to reach his beliefs and, you know, there are working hard stubble pennsylvania dutch background that he grew up in because a whole lot of people grew up in becquerels like that, and most of them became new dealers essentially. i -- if you ask congressman paul

this question, and i believe him when he says it because it feels internally true, a really came away lots of libertarian come about, for reading the right of the wrong books depending upon how you want to look at it. books like dr. zhivago, hit home for him. books by high-tech kind of explain the economics. books by bus bar help him understand the dangers of ablation. and that is what -- it is really an intellectual thing for him. it is obviously emotional as well, but i don't think you can explain it by anything other then, he picked up the read literature. i think it is great, the great wheel turning if he is up to make sure that millions of other kids are reading the read literature as well. >> i think really does go back to the nature of nectar. i think he was born with individualist blood in his body. there were also -- there were a family that had some money to

what they did not have a lot. it was in the depression were people counted pennies and nickels and really wants to everything they spent. even though they had a little bit of land, maybe an acre of land, they worked hard. they knew what hard work was like. i think he was born with an independent mind. he did not like people telling him what to do. he did not like the idea of big government, but a lot of people born that way. as think he's right. he discovered i and rant, pasternak. he discovered on meese's. and so as he began reading those things, i think they are not what makes you an individual. i think they give you the intellectual arguments supporting individualism. and so which came first, the books are were you born that way? i don't know, but i think it is always the combination, at least my opinion of both and a lot of us. >> so libertarian father? >> yes. no curfew. actually -- [applause] and this gets to other services

that people have. can you be very, very traditional and very conservative in your personal life but in the very libertarian in what you think government should be involved in? i think you can. sometimes i think libertarians are upset that someone may be too traditionally conservative and not understand libertarian something else. they still may not want laws against certain things, but stay at the same time of very conservative. i would say we live in a very traditional conservative family. unfortunately i did have a curfew. i didn't trouble a few times. >> okay. there in the back. let's take the last question. >> r.j. smith, competitive enterprise institute. i think one of the most interesting things that is come out of the ron paul revolution has been with some of the new people who have been elected and come to the tea party.

the rediscovery of property rights and the importance of the fifth amendment and particularly the takings compensation. and it just happens that, perhaps, the first and the most courageous person on this in the u.s. senate in the 40 years since the environment movement got started has basically been using environmental laws to take property rights without compensation, rand paul and mike lee and particularly with the legislation they have introduced to stop the epa and the army corps of engineers from declaring dry lands as wetlands and then taking with no compensation and preventing the use of the lacey act to prevent a gibson guitar company from bringing in the woods from foreign countries. and i wonder if you would comment on that? >> it is top secret, and i'm not allowed to tell you. no, we are -- i am actually collecting a lot of these stories together in a book. i was hoping that david would

invite me back we have thus to present. we have introduced legislation of the lacy act. the gibson guitar. it did appall me that i discovered that we were actually forced to be regulated under foreign laws. basically all fishing regulations for the entire world. you can be convicted of honduran, brazilian and spend time in a u.s. prison over these things. so we have gone after things like that. people have been in prison for putting dirt on their own land, basically raising the elevation of their on land because people say they are polluter because they're going to mean there on dry land. so there are a lot of these crimes and over criminalization to regulation. we are very interested and will keep going after them. >> i just wanted to add to that. r.j. and i have known each other for years. we both used to work together in the old town house in the early 90's. telling me the same thing he to set here at an event.

and i was not as impressed as i should have been because i was just thinking, yak, yak. epa. bad things they do, property rights. we have been talking about that since 1991. i heard it all before. i thought, well, it was just as in a small town house. it was not a u.s. senator and it is, indeed a very big in granting. acting on it. thank you for bringing that point up. >> all right. the book is ron paul's revolution. thank you brian doherty, senator rand paul, thank you for being here. there are books for sale at every bookstore in america, but also out here and always with the author year to sign it. please join us for wine and cheese. [applause] >> and now more from wichita,

kansas. book tv visited the city with the help of our cable partner to explore the history and literary culture of the area. >> my name is sarah bag be. water moccasin cafe in wichita, kansas. this store was opened in 1977 founded by bruce jacobs. he opened the store because there was a lack of stores at that time that you could go win after reading the new york times book review or something like that and have a conversation with someone and you were talking about. there were a few chains. we have managed to stay in business through three moves and the addition of the cafe and being space. the store has really grown and evolved a over the past however many years. >> what kind of books to people in wichita flock to?

>> well, i would say to kinds. one is local. you know, anything that is quality that has to do with local history, local stories, human interest, that kind of thing, the more specific the better. also, you know, one of the reasons watermark put stays in business is because we can filter through and curate all of the books that comes to the major publishers in new york. presses, small presses. we can make recommendations on things that we think will be relevant to their lives. so we are -- something might not be as popular in new yorker d.c., we can help get behind it and sell it to our customers. the community likes to read a lot. at the height of the brick and mortar bookstore footprint they're were four box stores and three independent stores and universities.

so for a city this size that is, you know, a large amount of square footage for bucks, and the weather is not so great. and you're not distracted by, you know, hiking or the addition. so, you know, their is a lot of time to read. we are a part of commerce. and we were able to sell e-book 210 the infrastructure of our website, beginning in 2010 right around christmas. and it was interesting because that only were we selling e-books, will people had another reason to come to our website. our physical but sales increased much more than we thought there would. we thought it would just be-books, but it was interesting because we have more traffic to the website and the physical books grew by a much larger percentage than the-books. >> the report in the news, while

certainly the next order thing is growing, the perception is that, there is no physical book sales. at think that is the perception that comes across. in fact, the market is split up 20 to 80%. 80 percent is physical books that is still being sold, so there is still a huge volume of physical books. it's just not growing as fast. so i think the physical books are going to be around for a little while. i know that one of my publishing representatives was in here recently. you know, they have had a sales meeting. their company, from the sales people, we are still a physical books company. only 20 percent of our book sales are in the books. i think it is uncertain. i don't think the bookstore in five years will have the same

exact look, but i know that we will be exploring options through a myriad of ways to reach our customers and our readers. >> for more affirmation on book tv recent visit to wichita, kan., and the many other cities visited by our local content vehicles, go to c-span.org / local content. >> what of want to do and what i have been doing is a four year investigation on five continents i don't know if they're is a sixth. the one percentage. the other names, we to trophy wives. i want to know the movers and shakers are moving and shaking gas. it's going to meet them, and they're going to meet the people that they have moved and shaken

because it's not about wall street. we occupy for stan lee and mattingly. by the way, and oklahoma, lives in a trailer. and on her property, much of the indian reservation property, courses that go up and down, the middle horses. they have a contract which the company to go around and pullout that oil. then make a few bucks. pulling in about $30 a month, which she really needed. the truck would come in and pull 20 barrels out of kershaw per well and marked down 16 and go to her neighbors and take out 11 barrels and marked down eight. what? it's called of rich or theft.

a couple of beryl's year, a couple of girls here. about $160 million by my calculation. how can i know this? filming it. before i was an investigator, investigative reporter i was an investigator. big cases. and working with the fbi, they had felt. take eight and march down six. all these trucks went back to the loading dock and obama. they're unloading dock was a guy with a steely gaze sorting the truckers. he said, i want more overage, theft. i want more. the guy was charles cook.

no, you have to witness this. we have a wire. because my question, my question is, why? they guy was born with a billion dollars. he got it the old-fashioned way from his daddy. agassi did they get it the old fascist way. he's a billionaire. oklahoma taking 30 bucks, 12 bucks a weaker something. we know the answer. we had is executives, one of his top guys wired talking about his conversation. he said, i want what is coming to me. that is all of it.

and that is why we occupy. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> what are you reading this summer? book tv wants to know. >> this summer want to read the book did not ask why we do by robert draper. it is an inside look. managing two-party freshman. there are some great lies that i have heard and articles i've read that showed just how crazy it can get with a lot of these freshmen who are put into the tea party who arguably are controlling the weight that the house is running, even though their freshman. one liner here. apparently in a meeting, he told people, get your in line. i think it's so polarizing.

this would be great for some summer reading, to just kick back and figure out some of the draws they're actually going on behind the scenes. and another book with a cheery, it's a story written by rolling stone, but a personal story about how he fell in love with someone who also fell in love with them. a very unlikely pair. for my understanding she died. devastated, but then he makes tapes which is something i did for years and years and years. but he basically writes the book that is essentially a mix tape to her in her honor because he

wants her and she is gone. it sounds like his mistake, his final next to it was love songs. i can't wait to read that one. >> for more information on this and other summer reading lists visit booktv.org. >> over the past four years pill to prize-winning author david maraniss has been researching and writing his tenth book, barack obama the story. the research included traveling the globe in speaking with the president's relatives in kenya and discovering his african ancestry of the shores of lake victoria. he also toward family homes and sites to find the origins of his mother's family. barack obama the story comes out in bookstores on june 19th. book tv will give you an early look with exclusive pictures and video, including our trip to kenya, as we traveled with the author in january of 2010. join us sunday to an 17th at

6:00 p.m. eastern time. later at 730 that same night, your phone calls coming knows command tweets. >> so, to get right into it i want to set the stage a little bit about the 1930's. and to explain, part of what led to world war ii being such an upheaval for the united states, the policies of franklin roosevelt during the 1930's. to give you some statistics, i will be briefed on those. for instance, factory output, the output of an american industry increased every decade beginning in 1899 for the following ten years factory output was up almost 5%. from 1909 to 1919. 1919 to 1929, the roaring '20s

to allow factory production was up over 5 percent each year. but 1929 to 1939 it decreased slightly every single year during the 1930's. so our industrial complex, of course, by 1939 has aged. it is out of touch with cutting edge innovations that are going on in europe and elsewhere. suddenly we are faced with this problem of a military complex in europe. we don't have anything to compete with them. and the book and mention that army chief of staff douglas macarthur at one. testified before congress in 1935 pleading for enough money so that his army would have enough bullets for 100 dozen soldiers. we are not talking about stealth bombers or complex weapons. we're talking literally about

even enough boats to men 100,000 army. and i can certainly understand if you are not for a strong military, american presence overseas, which we don't necessarily need, but i do think that a strong defense to america words of problems. in the 1930's we certainly did not have that, in germany was aware of that, and so was japan. that is still a lot of problems. the war, of course, comes along to the united states in late 1941 and suddenly factories have to be converted. well, overnight there restricted products to consumers. overnight in january 1942 you could not buy tires for your car . if your tires had been getting a little aced and you thought, oh, well, next week i'll run down to sears roebuck and get a new set

of tires, you were out of luck. the only way you could get another set of tires was to go before the government hire board and prove what the you had an essential reason for getting a new set of tires. likewise to mario's, bicycles, clocks, even clocks, the common american could no longer purchase after the spring of 1942. all of those mechanisms are used in the war effort. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> what are you reading this summer? book tv wants to know. >> i am wrapping up citizens of london. how marvelous history. three very prominent people. strongly held views that we should get into the warning inside.

sent over there by president roosevelt to deal with the program which was our foreign aid program for england. and the ambassador who had replaced joseph kennedy, president kennedy's father. of course partial to the germans as suspect that is the reason that roosevelt felt at home. a marvelous book about the three of them and their interaction with churchill and their advocacy of the united states breaking out of this isolationist mode and getting into the war on in his behalf. also the author -- author had previously written a wonderful book called troublesome young men about the members of parliament who rallied behind winston churchill throughout the 30's and orchestrated his rice

to the prime ministership these two books, reading them back-to-back, a great look at the early stages of world war ii , and i highly recommend them. >> for more information on this and other summer reading lists, visit booktv.org. >> here is a list of best-selling conservative books according to conservative but service in order of appearance on their website as of may may 31st. first, martin van rights but conservative approaches to immigration, education, health care and more in liberty internee. second, conservative talk radio host writes about her take on the obama administration and the obama diaries. that is followed by former vice presidents of canada sarah palin cohen wrote. on the list, glenn beck common sense. presents an indictment of the abuse of his power by government .

then, in guilty and coulter argues that liberals pretend to be victims as part of their attack strategy when conservative positions. glenn beck makes the list for a second time with his novel the overton window of a public relations executive facing the challenge of exposing truth during a terrorist attack on american soil. seventh, bernard goldberg, slobbering love affair. he explains how he believes favorable media coverage of barack obama influence the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. former speaker of the house newt gingrich is eighth with his book, to save america. he explains how he thinks liberals are ignoring the lessons of history and moving further into ideological extremism. dick morris and and eileen again criticize the obama administration policies and catastrophe. at night on the side. followed by david proposal, the case against barack obama. he presents a side of president obama he says the media refuses to acknowledge.

for more conservative bestsellers' go to a conservative but service staff com. >> visit booktv.org to watch any of the programs you see here on line. type the author or book title in the search bar on the upper left side of the page and click search. you can also share anything you see on booktv.org easily by clicking share on the upper left side of the page and selecting the format. book tv streams live on line for 48 hours every weekend with top nonfiction books and authors. booktv.org. >> in 1993 will allen fought a 2-acre plot of land in close proximity to milwaukee's biggest housing project. from this initial purchases created an urban farm that grows 40 tons of vegetables and raise is 100,000 fish that can be 10,000 people per year