empire fell apart in the secular dictators begin to roll these countries in the middle east and they wanted to be friends with britain and america. it was the most powerful for 200 years in america wins world war ii. like the shot of her rant, the sender is to western schools, get rid of the burqa is. until the muslim brotherhood started in 1928 and they said stop trying to be at the west and organized to pull the rugs out and reinstitute fundamental islam. under jimmy carter camus told to write out from underneath a shot. ..

he does not do the same and as a matter of fact, some of the slides i have here i show people that he has been putting on his staff, and so these are just some pictures you can look at the screen and i going to get the one -- here we have nancy pelosi submits to islamic law, hillary clinton puts on the muslim veil. and we have muslim postage stamps and another president bells to the king of saudi arabia. the king of saudi arabia is like the godfather of islam because the two holy cities and islam are in that country. and so he says whatever we want or we are no longer a christian

nation. he has four brothers and wives in kenya and campaigns for muslims. 3,000 muslims in the u.s. capitol alone. these are muslims that are on the president's staff that have connections so you date back for enough, they are connected with the muslim brotherhood. arif stopped as the mayor of los angeles stopped the tracking of terrorists. such a good job he was chosen to become homeland security. he says the president and educator has whole qur'an memorized. the first veiled muslim adviser to the president says gender justice, sharia law is gender justice and so if you want your husband to beat you. hillary clinton, her right hand person has connections with the muslim brotherhood so much that michele bachman, trent franks, louie gohmert all at the reception called for an investigation of hillary clinton. and so we see that our foreign policy is helping the muslim

brotherhood. hillary clinton is rebuilding mosques in 27 countries in after-tax dollars. get a load of this. hillary clinton in 2012 meets with the speed fault, richest men in the world and istanbul, turkey. she promises she will find a way to implement their agenda of an antiblasphemy law. so they've been working for ten years to get the u.n. to push a resolution 1617 to out all free speech in islam and so then hillary does a strange thing of pulling defense and security away from benghazi and then it comes out the president is friends with morsi and then six hours into the attack, hillary talks with obama on the phone and no help is sent. in the next day, after the killings, she immediately contacted through the state department google and youtube and tells them to sensor all of the content. we need to sensor the content.

by $70,000 worth of air time in pakistan, the loved your profit blaming this video. what was the goal of that? the needed the fast and furious crisis they could blame on somebody would use their first amendment rights and they could say this is the person that provoked it and we need to stop where you create a crisis and use them. so where is the real clinton? so they needed the crisis they could blame on free speech so they could push this u.n. agenda of antiblasphemy laws. so anyway, someone else? >> we have to go on to the next speaker. >> it is all in the book and it's all in the vv. but just one minute a way of explaining this to people i did this in the congress with michele bachman. what does the work like mean? it is a source of elimination. it's also an adjective and the

opposite of the word heavy. and aver blight you're going to light a fire. so the word blight is one word with free meanings. now come adjective and verb. islam is the religious system, the political system and military system. so as the religious system it's okay. do i agree? know that there's a lot of things i don't agree. but in the system it is absolutely antithetical to the freedoms we have here in america. anyway, thank you so much. [applause] >> focusing on transportation safety. first a portion of a program

from 2006 with the co-authors of the u.n. safe at any altitude took a look at the u.s. government's investigations into the quality of airport security following 9/11 and argue that the takeover of airport security by the transportation security administration or tsa hasn't helped to improve security. >> frank of course suffered greatly being blamed for 9/11 and there were also tens of thousands of screeners have lost their jobs and their livelihood. one of the main points in the book is that 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with airport screening. it was just a diversion. a red herring that would make the public focus attention away from the intelligence failures that resulted in 9/11 and focus on airline screening and airport

screening. as a result we ended up with tsa where we are spending $5 billion in year to the all of you have been through it and you know what it's like and the testing and joe will talk more about this but the testing shows the private screeners were actually twice as good as the tsa screeners are today. [applause] >> i was a radio talk-show host that is a light wing howard stern. i went on the show, and mancow said you'll be amused to know john ashcroft is going to be on the show with you. would you like to ask a question? i would certainly like to ask a question so the question was you demonized the securities and the screeners, riven their lives, and how do you feel about that

now? and then he said we were in a panic. those screeners come those 25,000 who didn't look like us were replaced from the eyes that looked like they were from west point that became the tsa. they didn't get their jobs. the government hired a private recruiting firm for the sole purpose of avoiding hiring laws and so the screeners who don't know how to work the machines and understood their process were not rehired. and let me tell you the result five years later. the current tsa work force according to the secret tests by

the department of homeland security catch about half of the test articles the private screeners did. the private screeners cost $700 million a year. the new screeners are $6 billion a year. the one thing the 9/11 commission told us was get the intelligence st.. if you don't have the threat to the aviation security solved before people get to the airport, then you can't protect the airplanes. and at the root of that is getting a watch list together. a unified watch list from all the intelligence agencies that is accurate, that reflects who the terrorists are to the aviation security and i got something with me i want to show you. this is the no-fly zone. 44,000 names and this is what

the president referred to as evil. unfortunately, the list is so inaccurate that it is virtually useless. there are irish terrorists, fashion models, government bureaucrats and soldiers on this list. there are terrorists who are on the other government watch lists who are not on this list. there is comfort example, an american terrorist named david who committed murder in washington, d.c. on behalf of the ayatollah and other workers around the world. he's not on the no-fly list. there's a cubin terrorist pardoned by bush. he blew up an airliner. he's not on the no-fly last. what we have done is create what the people at tsa who talked to

ross described as i can be treated it's a facade, public relations. and let me tell you something that's happened in recent years. improvised explosive devices have been found behind security lines at seattle and at los angeles international and the atlanta airports and a wheelchair pusher who was handling an old lady and the terminal found a gun to eight behind the toilet. these are the things tsa doesn't tell you. now you recall last summer we were all told about this great business about the british plot. surprise, surprise they're going to blow up 12 airliners using chemical explosives. let's talk about connecting the dots. in 1994, the cia through very good police work in the philippines got a hold of a guy

and his computer and they learned that the they were building small chemical bombs and actually when they told the japanese businessman. they were doing it and they were planning at and so in the middle of the night at 3:00 in the morning, the tsa says surprise, surprise you can't bring shampoo or toothpaste on the plains. these folks are utterly and completely incompetent to protect our air waves. and the quicker that we as americans realize that and understand what we are dealing with, the quicker we will realize that we've been wasting a lot of money and a lot of effort. for example, while you and i are standing in line taking off our belts and doing all these other things, there are 600,000 airport workers who go into the airports every day carrying toolboxes and launched its and they are not screened or checked

and all the stuff is delivered into the airport is not inspected or x-rated. so in the front we have a wonderful security facade but behind the airport so people say why hasn't something happened? it must be better. they haven't killed anybody lightly. i remind people that the first attack on the world trade center was 1993. it was 2001 when they brought down the building. these folks are extraordinarily patient. and this administration's response has been a military solution to in my view what most people's view is a police problem. these are criminals. terrorism, the war on terror it is a technique. so we declare the war on a technique. it's sort of like declaring war on missiles or did chu. it makes no sense.

new target people who are criminals and not the whole society. what you do when you target their whole societies create a response to you that you hate us all and you recruit for them and that is fundamentally what we have been doing. now why would these folks be mad at the united states? i wanted to answer that question and susan, you should tell the story had a unusual source. >> i had a source that said what are you working on? i said i am working on a book about airline security. he said you are? would you like to meet a hijacker and i said yes. who do you have in mind? you know the guy in a rude and i said put twa?

yes. the one that threw the body out on the tarmac? yes, do you want to meet him? so i did. okay. so i sent him to see him. [laughter] very interesting the only guy to ever hijacked to airplanes in one week. he hijacked a plane with - guy marshals aboard successfully and he was able to identify the sky marshals by the fact that they didn't have boarding passes. so just a good intelligence work. but the question was how did he get access so easily? why was it so easy for him to do all of this? it turns out that the power behind the hijacking the u.s. put on the payroll many years

before. he was currently condoleezza rice's best friend in lebanon who was then the head of the militia and the militia was the sort of nice front group for hezbollah. any way he thought i need to build up my street credibility with hezbollah because they are a tough crowd. then i need the united states to believe i can do these things for citizenship for my family and money and all these things and i need to keep them happy because i need to keep the door open. selling them to do everything. i'm going to hijack airplanes and then rescued people being hijacked and give them back to the united states and be the hero. what had gone wrong was he was in a safe house where nobody got killed to protest the presence in lebanon. he used the hot to hijack the

plane and they went crazy and started killing passengers. so in the middle of the night is not on board the plane at beirut airport and he was given the inscription if they don't cooperate with them, kill them. to go for the hijacking. and he did. he got what he wanted and we've got the survivors of the twa backed and he became powerful in the middle east. years later, the cia hired a criminal gang in lebanon. he wasn't your average boy scout to vignette you can read about him in the novel because while we were doing this book the nonfiction version he was writing a fictional version because he was in the cia and he can't do this with the same story hamdan is now a very

active family and i use the term nicely. here at the latter time besides killing his sister-in-law and the doctor and the traffic dispute he was also working for the cia. what he was doing was creating the illusion of a libyan terrorist cell that was supposed to be conducting acts all over europe. and then he was called upon to do something else. we need to catch a terrorist. the marines have all been killed. by the way, they left the marines because he allowed has allowed to come into the bombings and the same with the station. but he was on the payroll. the hamdan family was used again and this time of the mediterranean and fly him to washington as the first

terrorist to be put on trial in the reagan administration. he never killed anybody and he saved the lives of every betty on the flight with the exception of the murder. the one thing in the trial that wasn't allowed to come out was talking about the role in ordering the hijacking. the kit that from getting into the trial. they put him in jail for 18 years and who do you think his roommate is? the potential with the notorious dealer and taught him everything he knew and by the time we let him out a couple of years ago, he spoke perfect english and had a street credibility like you couldn't imagine and he flies back on the commercial airplane even devotees of the no-fly list to beirut. this alignment to see him and i said can you tell me why friends

who were dissipated and actually murdered robbie are allowed not to roam around. there's a 5 million-dollar reward on every one of them and he says you are so innocent. he said they are protecting very. they are protecting hezbollah to the i said allied with the administration polk protect hezbollah? he said timing is everything. what was going on in the 1980's, what did you miss? he said the iran contra. this was the other side of the scandal. the negotiations, the administration was more important than collecting the terrorists and getting them and that is what the engagement. that may be one reason why when the united states says it is going to fight terrorism around the world, the credibility might be tattered.

let me give you another reason. six months before the bling of 103, the tragic explosion that killed kids from syracuse and some officers and other people the united states did something attractive. we shot down and iranian airbus and we lie about. they were in the eye iranian territorial waters and actually monitoring in ev steel operation at a time in the water is a shot down an airliner and killed hundreds of people and we lied. the vice president lied about it, the president lied about it and we falsified evidence. we had the navy at the ground make fake tapes to prove it wasn't where it really was. they realized that started an arms race. they went to china and france and said we need defense against

u.s. military and they ordered a system called the cruise missile system, a devastating system that can sink any ship and they bought them and they got them and the salles the end result of that when the iranians were there, the revolutionary guard were there and the shot off the cruise missile at the israeli ship almost signed. so there were consequences to the foreign policy affecting the civilians. if you don't look at the short term foreign policy games in light of what can happen to the air passengers and citizens of your country there are huge costs. now, at the dulles airport on the night of september 10th, --

[inaudible] >> did they do that deliberately? >> it was an accident but we live adel that. they were conducting operations in their territory waters but it was an accident. it was an accident that we lied about. had we shot it down and immediately called the president of iran and said we need a mistake. we misidentified it, we were in your waters, this might not have escalated but it did and they used hezbollah and libya to put a bomb on the airliner and kill innocent civilians. tit-for-tat, that is the deal.

and i for and i. that is the background out there that airline security doesn't talk about and that tsa doesn't discuss but every passenger is living with that baggage on their shoulders and that's why it's important for the americans to focus on the reality of this and what we are facing their. it's serious stuff and it's depressing and unless we face up to the fact we can't just create this illusion of security and there's easy ways of doing it. let me give you an example. but watch list, the way to get that on a computer disk is like a spreadsheet but the reason they keep getting kids with the same name as terrorists on the watch list, there was a kid in san diego and the kept stopping him, there is no biometric

identifier. the intelligence agency won't pass on the sectors, the fingerprints, the other stuff. they don't trust them so they don't give them this stuff. instead of doing that what we need to do is have the government keep that list and once you make a reservation or buy a ticket, the government sees the name and it is up to the government to them get the passenger list. to get away from the airline. write down that what we set up is the last line of defense to beat in fact the last line of defense because of the cabin door and so forth is the steward that's pretty scary but it's up to the passenger and the stewards to save the planet. >> our collection of programs discussing transportation safety continues with kip holly of the transportation security administration. in 2012, mr. hawley argued for restrictions on items of air

travel to a focus on larger destructive devices and observance of passenger behavior >> we went through a story of trying to the start up with a doing the same thing them, etc.. high premium on getting it to be consistent. ahead three or four years and the rules are so dense that the

net effect is that you have the agency to protect the country after 9/11 you are saying welcome aboard. here is what you do and if you disciplined. intention to make it that way and it wasn't anybody's where there were not pay raises and job opportunity promotions effect of ossifying of the security system. ? does is if i follow the operating procedure no matter what happens at the end of the day i go home and unprotected and as long as i stay within the

what i realized early on from accountable for the better the result is and saying we feel terrible about the plan will mean that but we with this book explains is a bunch of stories about frontline and clearly i'm in favor of that. i also point out at the foot side of that is that when you allow people to think they make mistakes. and if you're going to say have a big sound like you're going to

question when a series of checkpoints because officers ipod have one opinion on it but it drives to the very core of what your security operation is. and i think that is the central issue we have to decide as the american public on the security what is the risk we are willing to absorber? is it that he gets on the plane and media hurts a couple people or kills a couple people? is it worth doing an aggressive pat-down to prevent the bad occurring or other alternatives. so when it comes down we use the word risk-management and the time it doesn't to favor that there are some fundamental

issues that are easily accessible and don't involve classified information that i think we all have to discuss. so, with that i think you for coming and welcome your conversation. >> thank you. i will start with a couple questions and then want to open at the audience. i think that your premise and your most central point is that for us to be able to succeed, it has to be part of the community and the general public have to assume some ownership obviously given the fact that we have been successful in many of our counterterrorism initiatives as well as preventing others from going into the planet. walden to the complacency while the flat side is that we don't want to be constantly going up and down. you don't want the ekg going

like that. we don't want to flat line. but the point being what kind of steps can we actually take to try to get to win over the general public and you were at the helm of the tsa. what could you have done differently if you were to take that position in the romney or the obama administration that said in the future administration what would you have done differently and then further along those lines, what surprised you most coming into the department on that side cracks and you know i -- the other adjectives which is spot on is agile. we have to more reeler dealing with predators that face their actions and if you advertise

hell you are going to defend yourself, you are displacing the rest. you're not removing it or managing it. you are displacing it. the first question, how do we get the general public on board? what practical and pragmatic steps can be taken and second, given your time at tsa come easy to identify some of the challenges and very difficult to be in the position where you have to have those conversations with the general public and would be advising the next administrator of tsa? >> i will start with of the third one which is easy and that is i hope the next administrator is a person named john pistole who has a ten year term and we have the stability of the leader that understands risk management and understands the security and think that would be a good place

to start. going back to how do we get the public on board and win back the public, i look at israel and everybody comes back and wants to talk about profiling or the interview they get or the israeli security. but to me, the fundamental premise is that the israeli people and the security services are totally together. and that is a power way beyond what you combine with scanning pat-down. that is a core of learning that i had an understanding about how israel as its security and i think that for the united states this is a security issue the public feels so divided from its security. what i said in "the wall street journal" is i came up with five

things that i believe could be implemented within more or less conversation going with the public and i truly believe the prohibited items list was public, it was good for security , 2001, 2002 and 2003. somewhere along the lines it outlived its usefulness other than bombs, guns and toxins, things that can take down a plane or very quickly kill a lot of people. the amount of time and energy that we spend fishing for bags, pulling out prohibited items is a blease and i can get the drives the officers to focus on

things that really are not a security risk to the aircraft. you certainly could kill somebody with your bear hands or a knife but that's not what i believe the tsa is there to do. so the prohibited items i would say yep, get rid of that and allow the officers to focus on explosives and allow them to focus on the people, the behavior. so i think i can talk about the liquid scanner, the machines that in the airport today fallujah with software that exists today can detect ret liquids and does unfortunately produce false positives which but one of my second organizations is to make that choice open to the public. the been,

do it and go through this line it may be takes longer. having more to places for the increase the credibility. and what you say is that's going things up. you didn't read suggestion number one which is get rid of the prohibited items list. you fix that and then they be called be engaged program which has to do with training them on explosives and terrorist that whole realm of things.

baggage fees' it sounds like a throw away because they tell but the airlines today pay the fees to the tsa. and i would gladly say i bet you that if you told the airline you no longer have to pay this fee or in a fee for that matter to the tsa, just do not encourage passengers to bring so much carry on through the checkpoint you would save so much money you would get a better security result because the officers would have clearer bags, and the public would like that. so i think getting rid of those baggage fees is a security issue. it is making it more difficult for the officers. the fourth thing i had was, now fifth thing which is random and we have that in every security

regime whether it is your bank security system or anything else. but it allows you to choose from a broad spectrum of security measures and it's not one-size-fits-all but you have a number of security possibility is that you randomize and given that they now have the ability to look at the reservations of to 72 hours in advance, it gives them time to prepare specific of time and working at random as well. so that would get the public back on your side. the biggest mistake, there was a question about that. >> it is easier to start things.

>> part if it is systematic. >> those were at tsa will find this shocking. i think i was too tentative. i should have just gone for it to get rid of all prohibited items. i started off with scissors and got my head handed to me and went back for more. you know, at that point i lost my enthusiasm for going one by chertoff that has got and the leaves and the risk-based security is possible that he may have gone ahead with that but i see three and a half years that is longer than anybody else but you can't make these changes and stick them through that period

of time which is true for the administrator pistole and i am sorry to say this to you, but there is a ten year term and that allows people to get comfortable this person is going to be here a while and i am not going to serve in the future of administration. >> it's like the fbi to build it out to be a genuine law enforcement kind of agency. the problem is you have low rule books because you get the military and what they learn the hard way and it took men and women dining to learn that need to push decisions down into the front line, define the object of san ultimately the men and women closest to the action get things done. we are nowhere near that concept. do you see that? >> i think that we were close to that with this engagement and we

them for two full days on exactly this. where we ran into implementation trouble is once it got out to the field and the officers started to think i hope i don't make a wrong one and the first level of management and second level up the chain was like you're going to let them make that call and i'm going to be accountable for that result? that is a very hard things of that is a ten year project and we got about two years into it and i don't know the status. i talked to officers when i travel and i get varying answers. >> please identify yourself. do we have a microphone coming were just speak loudly? >> the senior fellow here. question i would ask is back to the credibility question on the public and that is the use of

intelligence. a very tactical intelligence involved with the tsa. when you were there, not specific instances but when you were there what was the judgment in trying to determine at what point in time to start to tell the public we have something here this is a threat we need to worry about it because it just -- forgive me for one second of but one of the things that seems to be happening is that we will make these statements and then people will say haven't we heard this before and then nothing happens. that is one of the reasons i wrote the book was to give it back and i will give you one specific answer, and this 1i was and timid. and there was in 2007 a disturbing trend of training with remote-controlled vehicles as a way to bring bombs on planes. it was coming from very, very

good sources. upsetting to me was the fact that lescol will plead with different things so there was the training camp and then you would see something else over here. looking to see charlie allen is about to jump me. fortunately some guys in south carolina were driving and the had the video with a remote-controlled vehicle. so we went back to the national counterterrorism center and asked if we could get a report which is the term of or doing something that needs to be clause applied the you can get something unclassified and then we put out an announcement we are looking at remote control between vehicles and if you notice we are not going to prohibit it that we are going to look at it very carefully. have a nice day.

so we didn't change any regulations. that is a great example of what they do today in being connected to the intelligence community in the ending -- the intelligence committee being willing to work backwards and say okay you can actually use that because normally you know the odds we want to make a public statement. not going to happen, but it does happen. and i've seen the administrator do the same thing and it's highly effective. >> our transportation safety programming continues with michael presenting his book " flying blind" saying that it limits the power of the screeners making them more focused on political correctness of the and safety f >> we have a home on the west

coast of florida. and this past march, we were traveling to florida for spring break with our four children. our children are lucky age four, willson age six, like liz eight wid cate who is 16 going on 30. i had some unpleasant experiences with u.s. air in th category of poor service in myi. a mber opinion from philadelphia. and i talked about them on the t ofo and a number of listeners had sent you should try spirite airlines ourerience. and so that's how we found ourselves at the atlantic city airport headed to fort myers on a particular day last march. we walked from the car up to the ticket counter, we checked in, we had electronic tickets, and the woman very pleasant who was checking us in said, which one is michael jr.? and i pointed to my 8-year-old son with his pokey mon --

pokemon backpack and she said, i don't know if that will do. and i said, well, what exactly are you referring to? she said he's been selected for secondary or random screening. and i said, well, if it would be all right with you, i would be thrilled to take his place. no worries about that. and she said, yeah, that would be acceptable. so she handed me a boarding pass with a big red x on the front of it. i took it because we have a home in florida we don't back clothing. we travel light and we never check bags. i was traveling that day, i remember it well, with a cloth briefcase of the the only thing inside was a brand new copy of sean hannit's new book "deliver us from evil." you have to picture the scene we walked up to the security checkpoint and i'm now the individual who not only takes off his shoes and walks through the magnitometer but i am i have the thorough examination. what pops out is hannit's mug on

the new book. i didn't complain about the process. i believe we all have an obligation in the war on terror to do our small part. i thought it was a bit ridiculous. but i blamed osama bin laden. i cursed him under my breath. i got on the plane and we headed to florida. one week later it was time to now do this in reverse. you know that i host a daily morning program here in philadelphia. what you may not know is that each of our homes are also wired for sound. and so when in florida for spring break it's a vacation for the family, but i'm loathe to be off the air. i have a studio in our place in florida and i remain on the air. there is a piece of electronic equipment that allows me to be on the air, a comrex matrix. if you didn't know what it was you would be puzzled by it. it's an electronic device that looks menacing. we had technical problems while i was in florida that week. and our engineer said, bring home the matrix. now in coming home from florida -- you see where this is going,

i'm traveling with the cloth briefcase. i have read the book. i leave it in florida and inside now goes the comrex matrix. we arrive at the fort myers airport, check in curb side, there is a repeat of what transpired in atlantic city. in other words, the person says which one is michael jr., i explain it's my son. would you like me to take his place? that would be fine. as we now head toward the checkpoint, it occurs to me that i'm traveling with the matrix. and i said this is going to be an added hassle because i'll have to explain what these wires and electronics are. would you carry my briefcase? and she did. and she carried the briefcase and went through without incident. me, i got stopped and had to go through the full process of inspection. again, didn't necessarily mind it. thought it was a bit ridiculous, though, because now i had twice negotiated myself out of or frankly into the random screening process.

to the extent the matrix was a bomb, i have just handed it off to my cohort. didn't say anything about it. got onboard the plane. and flew home to philadelphia. now, about a week later the first of the 9/11 commission hearings on television began. and this was a hearing that you'll well remember because there had been some reluctance on the part of the administration to produce condo lisa rice for public testimony. -- condoleezza rice for public testimony. she testified behind closed doors but now the issue was her testifying on television. the administration said no. they decided to produce her. when they did produce her it was a very much watched event. the eyes and ears of the nation were captivated by a series of exchanges. richard was the person that i recall initiating them, about the p.d.b., the president's daily briefing from about a month before 9/11, what did he

know, when did he know it, and what did that document say? the following day all of the headlines and all of the stories about the 9/11 commission were consumed with the issue of the p.d.b. because for the first time the title of what the president had been told a month before 9/11 had been publicly revealed. i'm paraphrasing but it was something akin to bin laden determined to attack within the united states. but that was not what caught my attention in that particular hearing. what caught my attention in that particular hearing was the questioning by a felfian by the -- philadelphian by the name of john layman, st. joe's guy, i know a lot of people are acquainted with him. ronald reagan's secretary of the navy at age 38. an individual who was put on the 9/11 commission not at the behest of the white house, not because the democratic leadership wanted him to be there, but because john mccain wanted to have a set of eyes and ears on the commission and it

was layman that he selected. what i found interesting -- john layman, like the other commissioners, was only given 10 minutes of floor time. i found it interesting how he used his time. he asked a series of questions of condoleezza rice that were loaded with facts. her answers were incost quention. -- inconsequential. his questions told a menacing story about candidly how the clinton administration had been asleep at the switch and so, too, had the bush administration in the first eight months. i don't want to get into the whole political dialogue of one versus the other, he was trying to make the point that there was very little difference between the relative positions of the administrations on a variety of issues. give a listen just to refresh our memories of some of what john layman had to say to condoleezza rice. >> were you aware that i.n.s. had been lobbying for years to get the airlines to drop transit without visa loophole that

enabled terrorists and illegals to simply buy a ticket through the transit without visa waiver and pay the airlines extra money and come in? were you aware that the i.n.s. had quietly internally halved its internal security enforcement budget? were you aware it was the u.s. government established policy not to question or oppose the sanctuary policies of new york, los angeles, houston, chicago, san diego for political reasons which policy in those cities prohibited the local police from cooperating at all with federal immigration authority? were you aware, to shift a little bit to saudi arabia, were you aware of the program that was well established that allowed saudis citizens to get visas without interviews? were you -- >> we have edited out the answers, trust me they were nondescript. they are contained in total on

the c.d. i just wanted to give awe feel for his style of questioning -- give you a feel for his style of questioning. it was this question i think i say in the book that knocked me out of the barka lounger. give a listen. >> before i go to justice, were you aware that it was the policy and i believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young arab males in secondary questioning? because that's discriminatory. >> that's a mind-boggling question. she had no knowledge of what he was talking about. think about it. this is ronald reagan's secretary of the navy, now member of the 9/11 commission saying to the national security advisor, are you aware of the fact that we had this policy and still have this policy if you select more than a certain number of individuals of a particular ethnic stripe out of line at any one time, that's discriminatory in the eyes of our government? i heard him ask the question.

of course i reflect on my own experience because i couldn't for the life of me understand how my 8-year-old son has been singled out for this random screening on the flight down to florida and then coming back? so i then sought out john layman to ask him, because condoleezza rice hadn't offered much in her response, what in the world was he talking about? i remember the day so well because the gentleman who is running the audio for me and runs all the engineering aspects of the morning program is pete nelson, pete by the way thank you very much for playing that role again here tonight. pete and i together came in easter weekend on a saturday so that i could interview john layman because that was the only time that had been offered to me. layman was on his farm in bucks county, was in the studio there were not handlers, intermediaries, i think that worked to my benefit because he was very relalksed an very candid and i wanted to --

relaxed and very candid and i wanted to know from him what in the world were you talking about when you posed the quota question to dr. condoleezza rice? here's what he said. >> you said something to condoleezza rice, is it the policy of the justice department to fine the airlines if they have more than two arab males in custody? what were you talking about? >> the testimony a couple months ago from the president's -- past president of united airlines and current president of american airlines that kind of shocked us you will. they said under oath that indeed the department of transportation continued to fine any airline that was caught having more than two people of the same ethnic persuasion in a secondary line for questioning, including and especially two arabs. that's really the source because of this political correctness that became so entrenched during the 1990's and continues in the

current administration, that no one approves of racial profiling. that's not the issue. but the fact is that norwegian women are not and 85-year-old ladies are not the source of the terrorist threat. the fact is our enemy is violent islamic extremism. so the overwhelming number of people that one needs to worry about are young, arab males. >> when he told me that in no uncertain terms, i knew i had something worthy of writing up. i publish my column typically on a thursday for the philadelphia daily news. i'm allotted 650 words. i'm sure that doesn't mean anything to anybody in the room. for sake of comparison i recall again sitting in my home on easter sunday and writing approximately 2,500 words about

my exchange with john layman. calling zach, the editor the daily news at home and saying i'm -- i think i'm on to something here. i have had this extraordinary conversation with john layman that i think will resonate with readers and help them understand how we are going about this crazy airline screening process. i turned in a special column and it ran on easter monday. it was promoted on the front page of the newspaper and it was picked up in cyberspace and spun all over the place. ultimately my work on this subject would be picked up by national review online as well as the "new york post." that particular day happened to be the day that the phillies opened citizens bank park. i tell you that because a lot of aspects of this story "flying blind" the first thing i said was i never set out to write any book much less this one. a lot of aspects of this book are a combination, i say this in the book, michael moore, forest

gump -- for rest gump, michael moore with manners, and for rest -- forrest gump, in the sense i happened to question individuals about subject and used the strength of the airwaves of the radio program to get access to people i otherwise could not. at citizens bank park that day i ran into arlen specter. we have a relationship. i told him what i had written in that morning's philadelphia daily news. he hadn't seen it. i gave him the short version of the fact that john layman had explained to me over the weekend that the reason that in this random screening at airports the reason that 85-year-old women with aluminum walkers and 8-year-old kids like my own are being selected has to do with the fact it's all about not wanting to offend and not really with the security purpose in mind. senator specter was disbelieving. the next thing that happened because my pieces were picked up

in those journals and newspapers that i described, is that i was invited to do an appearance on cud low and kramer -- cudlow and kramer. i explained to a national cable audience exactly what i hav just explained to all of you, the sequence of events, my flying experience, my interview with john layman, what i learned on the subject. the following night i got out of the shower at home, the telephone rang, picked it up, it was a relative from florida and said boy, did you take a drubbing tonight on cnbc? i said what are you talking about? didn't you see. jim kramer -- one day after my appearance, has read a statement on the air issued by the department of transportation about you and among other things they say that you were wildly incorrect with the assertions that you made here last night on national television. i immediately began an email exchange with the department of transportation, with their

im,ck, a i ask .. between the two of us, unedited, in the book, which i say may i please have a copy of the statement you issued to cnbc about me which you apparently said i'm wildly incorrect. they refused to provide it to me. to the contrary they said, as a matter of fact if you write anything else on the subject, would you kindly share your column in draft form with us before it goes to press? to which i responded, it's not the soviet union and i don't work for tass. but they had some strong concerns about that which i had reported. i hadn't made it up. i hadn't pulled it off a right wing website. i simply reported what a former naval secretary and now 9/11 commissioner told me. here's what happened next. this is the more gump aspect of the story. by pure happenchance southwest airlines had just announced they were coming