and then they give them away because nobody would really want to spend the money on them. [laughter] and the koch brothers are the people who pay for the buses that take the tea party people to their rallies because they really -- and they also now are paying the people who organize, who hand out the leaflets, people who don't necessarily even know that they're being paid for by the koch brothers in order to get people to rallies. which, of course, for white, older people is a very easy thing to rally against. >> host: so, len, all that said, what's wrong with that? is that, is that wrong that they, you know, if that's the case? >> caller: let's talk about tyranny. i mean, basically -- simply. basically, what mr. levin is arguing about is that the tyranny comes from people organizing to decide that while in the preamble it says that we should be promoting the general welfare, and he remembers that

there are 310 million people in this country, he can't accept the possibility, he can't accept it, and i'm a kook who can't speak for six seconds on his show because i can't get through the screener, okay? >> guest: can't imagine why. >> caller: well, you can't get through the screener -- >> host: all right, you know what? -- >> guest: we have a new line here at c-span. it's called the kook line. now, let me try and remember some of this, because i can't remember all of it. number one, the koch brothers don't fund anything that i do. number two, no groups buy my .. >> host: buses, leaflets. >> guest: i have no idea about buses or leaflets, but so what if they do? gee whiz, the democrats never use big money to fund anything. let's see, what was the other thing he said, do you remember it all? yeah, i know, it was so memorable. but -- i can't think of

everything that he said. but -- >> host: he couldn't get through on your screeners. ing? that's a good screen or. [laughter] sometimes they sneak through, sometimes they don't. but everything he said there is a lie. every single thing he said there is a lie. >> host: but to the larger issue or to another issue -- >> guest: yes. >> host: -- of talking with and >> to another issue of talking with and reading people you disagree with. >> i have discussions with people i disagree with. substantive, intelligent discussions. if a guy calls me and says somebody funds something that they happened funded, if they are pushing the left-wing conspiracy crap, what am i is supposed to do? have a discussion with the guy? i cut him off and say get the hell off my phone. call somebody else and have a good time. if you want to discuss the amendment process, the

constitution, the death, we will have a serious discussion about those things, we will have a serious discussion about those things, but this -- the accusation, what a my supposed to do? i cut the moth. >> host: do you enjoy the writing process? >> guest: i love it. it is a lot of work because i actually write it, actually research it, actually do the scholarship, have to spend every weekend and every night after my show working on it. it does take a lot of time away from other things, but it is something i believe very strongly in. there is a discussion in part of the country about the amendment process -- i don't know that that would be occurring but for the fact that this book is in new york times best seller. >> the producer of this program

recently visited mr. levin at his home to talk about the writing process. >> there are hundreds things i want to write about. so it is hard work but it is the joy and the business part of it really doesn't drive me. on the other hand i am not mahatma gandhi either. i am a capitalist, but that said, what really drives me in trying to push sales is to try to get my books, my arguments into as many hands as i possibly can because my books are intended try to affect people's thinking, to give them ideas, maybe things they haven't thought about. and as i say i can't imagine other authors aren't thinking the same way but that is where i am coming from. i had one of the greatest

editors in publishing. his name is mitchell, he really is terrific and he has and i for this so he might say you might not want to use that sentence or you might reorganize this chapter or that chapter, but he is also gracious about how he does it knowing full well i am a little stubborn like most authors are but i certainly am so he might say you may not want to include that and i will say i am, he might say you might not want to include that and i say you are right so i like to bounce things off him but in the end i make those decisions. has there ever been head butting? no. have i ever turned in a book where they said good lord, no. they always said they are thrilled to have the book because i hand them a complete book with all the end notes in the book, all the sourcing in the book, all the arguments in the book, all the chapters in the book, i put it together and

hand it to them and at the end of this, if they review them to me, i don't know the other authors do that, other conservative authors, i just don't know but in my case, i have no ghostwriters or coauthors or anything of that sort, i turn in on time. there are things i want to write about, things i want to talk about, life is short. they don't need to say you missed your deadline. i am excited to get my book in on my dead man and i'm ready to go with the next one. it is hard work and it is. i do a radio show and i am not done until 9:00 eastern time and that means i work until 3:00 in the morning and i work every weekend so it does have an affect on your social life and so forth but this is what i do. this is what i love. people say to me what do you do for a hobby? this is what i do. it is wahabi ended its work and

i love it. >> host: mr. at the 11, what is the next boat? >> guest: i am working on the next book but i won't reveal what it is. i think i will call it -- i am not going to get into that. i'm not allowed to discuss. >> are you allowed to to discuss it? >> we will leave it there and go back -- i want to tell the prior caller your name is not steve. >> host: we will go back to calls, this is jim in newnan, ga.. you are on booktv with author mark levin. >> caller: i think it is pete. one thing is projecting. you mentioned earlier how you were a talk show hosts before you were one and so do i. one thing, i am always frustrated

when i am listening, i agree wholeheartedly but i am thirsting to hear one of you guys recount a conversation with mitch mcconnell or john boehner or anybody who gets in front of a camera somewhere and says stuff that is absolutely not true. are you guys, the platform you guys have, are you able not necessarily to put them in front of a camera but to at least speak to them and say what you said on such and such a date is wrong? >> guest: they don't talk to me anymore. i never talked to john boehner in my life. i think i met him once as a matter of fact accidentally. several years ago. but i haven't heard from john boehner and i used to get calls

from mitch mcconnell. as you might imagine because i don't support his reelection. i don't initiate calls with politicians. some of them try to initiate calls with us. sometimes i taken, most times i don't because some of them are my friends but i don't want to get too friendly because it becomes much more difficult to speak about them and what they are doing. i limit that as much as i can. >> host: john boehner's office said he would like to talk with mark levin on the air. >> i invited him to come on the air multiple times. we would love to talk to him. >> host: ask mark about general welfare clause to justify the agenda. >> guest: the general welfare clause. what is funny is that is

discussed at wang in the liberty amendments, so people who say they are familiar with me in my books and so on and so forth, many of them aren't. the general welfare clause is not intended to neutralize all the rest of the constitution. you hear the left talk about it all the time, the general welfare clause says this. what about the rest of the constitution? what is interesting is this actually did coming up and the framers made quite clear that it is absurd to say the general welfare clause would neutralize all the rest of the work that went into drafting and establishing the constitution, the specific powers and different branches and limited powers of the federal government, the state, the bill of rights and so forth. you can't just pass along because it affects the general welfare and going to pass it but

what the framers meant by that is it has to affect the general welfare and it has to meet all the other standards. they can't pass a law that is specific to say in pennsylvania it when it comes to x why is he. it has to have a general purpose. is up to the state of pennsylvania to address parochial issues. that was what was meant by the general welfare clause. not a complete evisceration of the rest of the constitution. i discussed it at great length in the liberty amendment and people who follow this know this wasn't even an argument to argue the general welfare clause gives power to the federal government to do whatever it wants to do, simply false. >> host: the problem of only relying on the framers for viewing the constitution is facing and slavery. >> guest: they didn't sanction

slavery in the constitution. as a matter of fact when the british kept importing slaves into the united states, into the colonies because we didn't have much control over our borders than either, there's a provision in the constitution that specifically ends the importation of slavery within a certain time after the adoption of the constitution. i would tell the gentleman to read abraham lincoln who is also cited in my book and abraham lincoln praises the framers of the constitution, many of whom were slave owners and he knew it and he said because they could not resolve this issue there and then, as they left it to their progeny to do it. that is what the declaration of independence does as i explained in my books as abraham lincoln explained over and over again, the same men who wrote and

adopted the declaration of independence which talks about the natural rights, the inalienable rights of the individual, not just white men, not just men, not just white but every human being set the stage for at some point the abolition of slavery. and the only rational position there is. why would you condemn the constitution? condemned the fourth amendment and due process rights, warrantless searches, do you condemn the fifth amendment, condemned the first amendment and free speech and religious liberty? do you condemn these amendments. and do you reject them too? the rational position should be,

what did these men create that is beneficial to this nation? what they created is a society that if it couldn't be completely free of slavery's then is free of slavery today and that is what the constitution, what the declaration of independence set forth, and in other words set in motion. a governing document set in place. i reject this idea that these men are to be dismissed, one of the reasons george mason didn't sign the constitution was he didn't think it went far enough on the matter of slavery. as a matter of fact the issue of slavery came up early during the constitutional convention and georgia and south carolina threatened to withdraw so here they were trying to put a nation together, they couldn't resolve some of these very difficult

issues at the time, and i would say one other thing. if the constitution had failed there wouldn't be united states, there wouldn't have been a civil war. in the southern states. these states are awful on their own, what the future of those states would have been. because we had a union, ultimately because of the civil war ended slavery. not just in parts of the northern states but throughout the united states. >> host: todd the a twitter wants to know if you would never run for office. >> guest: no. >> host: y? >> guest: from my own perspective i think i can be more effective not being in office and imagine all the sound

bites they pull up from my radio show, thirty-second adds. i give it no fault whatsoever. when i was younger i did. i thought about it. as a matter of fact i ran for office when i was in law school. i was 19 and got elected to my local school board. i was 20, i did that for three years. i calmed down since then. the were raising taxes massively, that they could. and could see how it was hurting my parents and other people and decided to run and i guess for my own little community, something akin to a tea party group but tax limitation. when i was running in the

republican party. i established this committee for a tax limitation, we would don't -- go door-to-door, i worked the community day in and day out. i won the general election. i served there three years till i left pennsylvania and got rid of the desire to -- i thought about it. the state delegate looking against him, spending too much money and got all nervous and everything like that. i thought about it but not in the last 20 years. >> host: do politicians come to you for endorsement? >> guest: yes. >> host: do you ever endorse? who is your favorite politician today? >> guest: that will get me in trouble. i have a number of favorite politicians today. ted cruz, mike lee, rand paul,

now i am going to get in trouble, members of the house or other senators, marco rubio. i disagree with him on the immigration issue but i like him on other issues, spending, budget and taxes and he has introduced a bill to prevent obama, he hopes, from subsidizing insurance companies, clearly shouldn't be done. so yes, there are aspects of his record that i like. >> host: 2016 jeb bush vs hillary clinton. >> guest: disaster. disaster for everybody. i don't know if that will happen or not. i hope not. i hope both parties do better than that. hillary clinton was a disaster secretary of state. the middle east is burning. obama likes to say or at least

before john kerry was appointed was the best secretary of state in history. what is he talking about? her record is a disaster. john kerry looks to one up for and make it even worse constantly putting the pinch on israel, looking for some phony peace with the palestinians, and appeasing the iranian islamic regime in tehran, it is complete disaster and you can see they are not taken seriously. the egyptian military which runs egypt now is now building ties with the russians, something democrat and republican presidents have prevented, you can see we are losing turkey as it has become increasingly islamist, saudi arabian as are fed up with this president and the secretaries of state and so forth. the chinese move into the china sea now. there are all kinds of things going on globally that are

hugely problematic and that is because of the disastrous apologies of this president and his secretaries of state. as for jeb bush how many more bushes do we need? we had two as president, we have jeb bush, trashing people who don't support amnesty, pushing for this common core federal education mandate on the state's, and it is a disaster. and what about picking someone more in line with reagan, try to win a presidential election. we talk about liberty and private property rights and free market capitalism and opportunity and wealth creation and obama is having a big picture today or tomorrow with unemployed people behind him which is funny since most of them are probably unemployed as a result of his policy.

why don't we have people who can stand up confidently and advance our principles. they don't have to be purists, just conservative. i don't think this is asking too much. why reject the one example of true massive national landslides, reagan, and keep embracing the losers? i think two. es is enough. >> host: chris christie. >> guest: i don't care for. he has a fairly terrible record in new jersey, the highest property taxes in the country, they still do today, he is weak on limited government, all these governors and state attorneys general who signed the brief against obamacare chris christie refused and still won't explain why he did it other than up wame argument he didn't want to spend the money. doesn't cost anything to sign

it. expanded medicaid now which is a disaster for the state, one of every $4 of the state's budget spent on medicaid. goes through the routine two or three years after the federal subsidy spot. he is pro amnesty, pro-gun control. why would the republican party go to a northeastern republican? they went to romney, that failed, chris christie, that is not going to work. i don't think his temperament will fly in much of the country. i am not a fan. >> host: who is sprite? >> guest: sprite was a dog that we own, my family and i, schiller dog -- oh gosh, how many years ago? it is 2004 there about. we adopted and brought him into

the home, sort of a blond white dog. so the family called him sprite because we had a dog that was black and white and called him pepsi so we had pepsi and sprite like the drinks. we only had him two years and he was a wonderful dog, wonderful companion to our dog pepsi, wonderful dog to us. i have a huge heart for dogs, for animals generally but dog in particular, and about a year in he got sick, part of his skull sort of caved in and a tumor, and it was very sad at the end, we had to put him in down. we had never put down of a dog before. it was extremely emotional and very upsetting and i got very down about it for a period of

months. what is interesting about that to people, i don't know, is i had in an early discussion with simon and schuster about writing a book on conservatism, became liberty and tyranny and sold 1.3 million copies, sprite passed away and i told them i wasn't interested in writing anything. and then because -- i just wasn't in the. because it hit me hard. so they said how about you write a book about your dog and then you write the book on conservatism? we really want you to write this book on conservatism so i did and it is "rescuing sprite".

it took three months to write it. it was very difficult to write, but it was fairly quick. and when it came out i remember my editor saying you need to work on the other book and a week later he said slowdown, let's focus on talking about "rescuing sprite," it took off and went to number 2 or 3 on the new york times best-seller list. and it is a very personal book, people who have adopted shelter dog story and if they haven't but have lost a dog or an animal or had to put the man down, they get much solace out of this book and i am glad they do and the koch brothers had nothing to do with it and everything i get from that book goes to animal shelter. >> host: do you have a dog today? >> guest: i have a dog called barney, barney is a shelter dog, had in two years, four or five years old, the story with barney

is he was turned in by somebody to an animal shelter, whorled virginia county, they don't keep them that long, one or two days and they were going to put him down but a volunteer called friends of mine, shelter the i'm very close to, i support lost dog and cat in arlington, virginia and they sent their van over and picked up six or seven of them in the nick of time within hours of them being put to death and i go to these adoptions things from time to time, i still do, and i lost pepsi. pepsi diet six or seven months earlier and a buddy of mine and i were on the floor playing with the dogs and this one in particular was very receptive to asante wanted to take him home b

he is a bundle of joy and when i am done with radio and all the rest i am going to spend my time trying to save as many of these dogs as possible. >> host: sean in hawaii, thanks for holding on, you are on with author mark levin. >> caller: hello from hawaii. i agree with most of what you have been talking about earlier this morning and i would like to know, the republican ever existed in our history, how long did it last or does it still exist? thank you. >> guest: great question. yes. the most ideal republic that has ever been established.

what some of us are trying to do is restore it. it is not perfect. no country is going to be perfect, no government is going to be perfect. we are not talking perfection. we are talking about completely out of control, getting increasingly out of control. some of us with kids and some have grand kids want to take steps today to try to avert the end of -- the republic part of it, that is important. no nation is guaranteed existence in perpetuity, none of them to exist forever, but there has never been a perfect society. we talked about the framers, they weren't perfect, but they were geniuses and they were patriots and they put everything on the line to establish this nation and i think we owe it to

the next generation and generations behind us to do everything we can to restores this republic and reestablished constitutional government. we have young men and women overseas, 18, 19, 20, 25 years old putting their life on the line in afghanistan and other places around the world, they don't have these little discussions that you and i are having today or i am having with the callers because they are americans and they are there to protect america, protect american allies, protect our liberty and our constitution and that -- they are not fighting, putting their lives on the line for obamacare or dodd-frank or unemployment compensation. they're putting their lives on the line because of america, the american republic. seems to us we civilians who are not putting our lives on the line the least we could do is make the case here at home

before it is too late before we hollow out our society and defend our principles. >> host: steve, twitter, does mark purpose the exaggerated views on radio? his books and this interview display more self control. >> guest: i don't purposely exaggerate anything. i am a guest here on c-span. it is like being a guest at a wedding or a guest at what ever. end you conduct yourself as a guest. c-span is not talk radio. when i do my show, as i said earlier on this program, the host has to have integrity. if you are as passionate as i am

about these issues, the future of the country, that comes across on a microphone. i don't do and be our where those people speak like zombies. that is what they are told to do and it is what they do. myself and on the radio and -- i am myself here too. you are asking me intelligent questions so i am giving you straight answers. if the coo calls i call him a coup. i don't think there's that much of the difference but i am against here and i know how c-span conducts it. >> host: you are watching booktv on c-span2, this is our in-depth program featuring one author, his or her body of work, this month it is mark levin. chandler, arizona. you are on the air. >> caller: i enjoy your books immensely. i have all of them but i do have a question about the liberty amendment because there is something i have been thinking

about. the argument in the white house changes laws, spends our money driving us into oblivion, and does whatever he feels like he wants to do, he wants to be a dictator and we have a senate where harry reid is carrying his water constantly. i know that other than elections, obama won't be in peach. is there -- do you have another idea that can be incorporated into the convention of the states that would allow the people to take other action to get rid of a person like obama? because obviously right now we don't have a way of getting rid of him and waiting until 2016 we may not have a country left. as for the guy that was complaining about the koch brothers i don't know if he realizes george soros, about a hundred or so, maybe more, i am

compiling a list, of left-wing organizations that restrict the out to destroy this country. i really am interested in your idea. >> host: let's get an answer. >> guest: i should say i am a big fan of the koch brothers. these are successful businessman who contribute mightily to this society. they are capitalists which is why they are hated by the left and they see the country going to hell and want to do something about it so i want to salute the koch brothers and thank them for all they do even though i don't get any money from them. number 2 what else can we do? i don't know of anything else. article v, the state convention process, it bypasses obama, harry reid, john boehner, the bureaucracy, and somebody might

say how is it? if they don't comply with the constitution today, obama is an example, what makes you think they will comply with these amendments? that is the brilliance of the process. whether they comply or not the states will decide what the states comply with. if these systems stage overturned a federal statute and obama wants to implement a federal statute he is violating the constitution and the state's needs not comply. if you are going to have a president or a congress that is so lawless that they blatantly violate something of that sort, no reason the states have to adhere to what the president or the congress for doing. we are making the constitutional argument and the others are not. hopefully my hope is more people will talk about this process and in order to learn about it be compelled to support it.

>> host: from "ameritopia: the unmaking of america," you quote whitaker chambers talking about the new deal that fdr. it was not a revolution of violence. was a revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking insofar as it was successful, the power of politics had replaced business. this is the basic power shift of all the revolutions of our time. this shift was the revolution. >> guest: absolutely brilliant. whitaker chambers and that comment in particular. the revolution has already occurred. the progressive revolution of 100 years ago. we are living in it right now. what i try to do, actually all four of these books, black: how the supreme court is destroying america," and tyranny: a conservative manifesto," "ameritopia: the unmaking of america" and "the liberty amendments: restoring the american republic" is discuss it at some length and make the case. we do live in a large the post constitutional period. there are some conservatives,

more likely pseudo conservatives who are perfectly happy with this and are prepared to accommodate it so they come up with so-called reform proposals, a little tax cut here and something on the edge over here but they will not address these constitutional issues, the foundational defects of the left's new deal and these other things they created. so there is some of that schism within the conservative movement to the extent there is a movement. you will see that more and more. they will quote edmund burke as an example. supporting the status quo. i don't think edmund burke would quote the status quo, not the edmund burke i read. he supported the american revolution. that was hardly the status quo. opposed the french revolution for reasons i agree with. the american revolution was considered pretty radical at the

time too. he supported it. burke did believe in experience, he didn't believe in lurching in one direction or the other. he believed in moderation. the word moderation is being bastardized by some of these folks to mean accepting radicalism or accepting a trajectory that is unacceptable that will in my view fundamentally alter or fundamentally transform as the president says our country. i don't think burke would sit still and say all we need is another tax cut. i don't think he would do that. he would agree with george mason that the government has gotten oppressive in some much of what it does, regulation through taxation, dictate and so forth, the people need a lawful constitutional non-violent option. >> host: "men in black: how the

supreme court is destroying america" came out in 2005 followed by "rescuing sprite" in 2007, "liberty and tyranny: a conservative manifesto" 2009, "ameritopia: the unmaking of america" was mark levin's fourth nonfiction book, "ameritopia: the unmaking of america" in 2012 and "the liberty amendments: restoring the american republic" came out in august of 2013. mark levin is working on another book but he won't tell us anything about it. bruce, you are on with author mark levin. >> caller: thank you very much. i was wondering what you thought of it seems to me that the senate treats the house as a kind of like the minor leagues. there is a lot of former house members in the senate. i never heard of a senator running for the house. >> guest: that is a very good point. i haven't thought it through. maybe there is one somewhere.

maybe a former president ran for the house, john quincy adams, a former senator, i think it happened but i can't remember off the top of my head. it is a good point. because the house of representatives really is meant to be the people's house and the senate is meant to be the house of the state legislatures and the senate really isn't the people's house, not the house of the state legislature, we don't know what it is. it is a myth and that was in 1913 by the progressives as was the federal income tax. those two amendments adopted the same year. progressives were republicans. taft, roosevelt, this is great because we are enfranchised and we can vote for our own senator. problem is you are voting for a senator who is answerable to whom? the senator is no longer grant durable to the state. they treat the states like

another group so they spend as much time dealing with lock as they might with somebody, a governor, they feel no obligation to state governments, state legislature whatsoever so that was quite revolutionary when that occurred. i think that is right. i don't think there is any justification for it but you have a lot of members of the house who think it is a step up to run for the senate and a lot of senators who look down on the house. shows how screwed up the system has become. >> host: robert, this is an e-mail, on your radio show you often talk about class warfare in america. 2011 study by the congressional budget office found the top 1% of households increased their income by about 280% after taxes over of period 1979-2007. at the same time the average income at the bottom 90% of americans basically stagnated

growing just 8% over the same 30 year period. doesn't this prove that there is class warfare going on in this country? the very wealthy against everyone else? >> guest: let's assume we round up the very wealthy, take everything they have. how will that improve this gentleman's like? is not going to improve it at all. or anybody else's for that matter. seems to me the opposite is the problem. the more government we get the more skewed the income. we have had the stimulus, we have obamacare, dodd-frank, the war on poverty, medicare, medicaid, social security, a thousand other programs and a thousand agencies and millions of bureaucrats, the goal of the government is redistribution of wealth, and yet the gentleman talks about and i don't even know if those figures are accurate but let's assume they are, the top 1%, this tells me

we need a freer society, we need to embrace private property rates and capitalism more so there is more opportunity for people to seek opportunity, not less. why would the answer to this be more government when more centralized government has apparently created the schism he is talking about? >> host: hank in maryland, please go ahead. >> caller: i am from that crazy blue state next door to you. my question is i would challenge anybody in the democratic party, anybody to tell me what qualifications this president has to be president of the united states of america. anybody. he has never done anything. my question to you is do you think that our education system ran bride progressive and liberal educational people are purposely dumbing down our young people by not teaching any history, anything about our

country so they continue to elect people like this and qualified man we have right now? thank you. >> guest: public education has become a huge problem. all the social engineering being used in the public-school system, i have been fighting the national education association since i was a school board member, a young guy and now the legal foundation has fought them too. it is interesting about antitrust, antitrust laws. our antitrust laws are used against corporations but unions are exempt. why? the n e a needs to be broken up and turned into 10,000 pieces. that is what i think. that is not to say all teachers are bad. all teachers aren't bad. i know several good ones but too many of them are of this union mentality and too many school districts are controlled by this agenda and the more the federal government gets involved the more you will see this happen.

social engineering, what isn't controlled by the federal government and the school system? even the cafeteria is controlled by the federal government. it is amazing. >> host: you say the total food production is controlled by the federal government at this point. with the regulations which i can't find which book that is in. >> guest: that would probably be "ameritopia: the unmaking of america". that is my guess. let me explain what is meant by a fat. what is grown, what is harvested, how it is package, how it is shipped, how it is offered in supermarkets, the federal government has a hand in every aspect. >> host: rob in new york. how did you get the nickname the great one? >> guest: i got in from sean

hannity. the great one when i was growing up was jackie gleason. it is not a monicker i gave myself. i had one liberal caller who called me the great big one. i thought that was pretty funny and i didn't hang up. that is where that comes from. >> host: another e-mail. is there anti religious bias in america? >> guest: there is an anti religious bias in the government and there is an anti religious bias in hollywood. it is quite obvious obamacare is the epitome of an anti religious bias. prior to obamacare we had the hyde amendment. the federal government did not spend a penny of federal resources on abortion and that was an accommodation that was a negotiated agreement that served this country well for a long time. obamacare is going to subsidize it even though the president

said it would not. you have religious entities and that doesn't necessarily mean churches and so forth but business people or individuals who are religious in and of themselves who do not wish to pay for policies that support payments for abortions or contraceptives or whatever you have and they are being told you must, it is mandated. that is clearly a violation of the first amendment. see what the supreme court decides, we hope that five justicees ruled the right way. this president and this administration and this congress push the edge of the envelope as far as they can and there is an anti religious bias and let me be more specific. there's an anti christian bias in my view. certain things you can't say about certain religious groups and so forth but if you are a traditional practicing christian you are written off as a net, as

a fundamentalist, and it is funny how ignorant people are who make these allegations. when you go back to our founding of the framers were very involved in and knowledgeable about the judeo-christian background, ethics, principles, people try to jefferson was a deist and franklin was a deist, yes they were but they weren't atheists. the constitution is an extremely tolerant document particularly when it comes to. and and particular early when it comes to the first amendment which was adopted later. we are an extremely tolerant country with respect to all religions and religious practices and that is because of the judeo-christian ethic at the time of the framing. i think there is hostility in mass me the and by the

government, but particularly against christianity. i say this as a jew. >> host: in mark levin's book "the liberty amendments: restoring the american republic" he has several proposals for amendments to the constitution. establish term limits for members of congress, restore the senate by repealing the seventeenth amendment, established term limits, 12 years for supreme court justices, limit federal spending, limit federal taxation, limit the federal bureaucracy, promote free enterprise, protect private property, grant the states authority to directly amend the constitution, and protect the vote. professor william green, an instructor in political science at south texas college e-mails in, mr. levin, why do you continue to claim james madison opposed no modification when he clearly stated in the document you referenced that thomas

jefferson's idea of the rights of notification is the natural right. what is nullification? >> guest: this happens from time to time. there's a relatively small fringe effort to push an agenda, nullification and others too, even a little secession movement going on. i would ask the professor can he point to one place in madison's notes, the most comprehensive notes of the constitutional convention where nullification is mentioned? he can't. can the professor point to anywhere in the constitution where nullification is mentioned? he can't. when he and others try to construe the tenth amendment which leaves all powers not specifically conferred on the federal government to the states as a nullification amendment. it is no such thing. they act like liberals the way

they twist and spin and reinterpreting what took place. he talks about jefferson. i have great admiration for jefferson. jefferson wasn't at the constitutional convention. it is interesting but so what? aldridge jury was at the constitutional convention. what did madison have to say? he was at the constitutional convention and had a major role but when you point out a letter he wrote in 1830, a rather lengthy letter in which he provides exposition on this at great length he goes into and and also enforces article v which you imagine he would because he voted for it. he comes out squarely and strongly against nullification. but then they say is that relates to south carolina in another letter in 1830 toes so there's no winning this argument because it comes circular. i entertain myself now and then and move on but the point is

nullification is the notion, it depends on who is promoting it because they have different arguments, the notion that a state can on its own nullify a statute of the federal government if the state legislature concludes that the federal government doesn't have the power to do it. it was a practical matter putting aside all history. where will that take us? let's say maryland doesn't like a particular statute fast by the federal government and says that doesn't apply to was, we are nullifying that because we concluded here in maryland that that is unconstitutional. what if ten states take that position? in other words you can't -- this is called anarchy and on top of that, these folks may not like it, as neil confederate. i am looking at the constitution, language in the constitution, something that was actually adopted at the

constitutional convention, trying to encourage people to look at it. some state legislators are taking a look at it. it is right there. we know who proposed it, we know what madison said about it later. so we have a movement that says it is an impossibility, let's go for state nullification. the big nullify ears out there as far as i am concerned have been on the left. they have been nullifying the constitution left and right as far as i can tell which is one of the reasons i think it needs to be reestablished and revived. if you can show me anywhere in the constitutional convention where nullification was addressed you can send it to me. if you commission me anywhere in the constitution where nullification is mentioned rather than your implication or your interpretation you consent that to be too which means you won't be sending me anything. >> host: brian in maryland, good

afternoon. >> caller: i thoroughly enjoy watching c-span booktv, i regularly watch it on us sunday and i recall some time ago you had a lady by the name of money phillips from england who has written a book the world upside down and i was very impressed by the remarks she made as to the warm words the progressives do not wish to hear and that is the truth. that really hits the nail on the head. i was at a party not so long ago, i was mentioning something about the obamacare problem, that was a problem. as soon as i mentioned that without any further discussion i was told i was the right winger, i was a fascist. what i would like to ask mr. levin who i respect very much,

what is the mentality of people of different ideologies? people of equal intelligence who agree with his concepts, and people on the other side of the issues? i would like to hear some discussion about that. thank you very much. >> guest: what is the mentality? i am not sure i understand. let me use this as an opportunity to say something that relates to it in terms of the ideology. i don't believe conservatism as an ideology. i believe conservatism is what naturally flows from him and experience. conservatism is based on human experience, based on reality, based on practicality, and based on reason and knowledge. that is why so many

conservatives oppose the obamacare from day one. is not an ideological thing but we know all this power over the individual and individual health care and decisions about -- in a centralized government by politicians and bureaucrats is a dangerous thing and also an impossible -- it won't work well and so we don't say that from an ideological reason, we say that based on human experience. on the other hand those promoting obamacare are ideologues, they reject him and experience, reject reality and knowledge and all these things that are important in making rational decisions. i would say conservatism is not an ideology. it is a way of life, a way of thinking, a way of being based on human experience and state is more liberalism is an ideology based on utopian is some and that is why you dared to say at

the party some of the examples of why obamacare failed or is going to fail you were called a right wing whatever. the truth is you are probably being questioned by a kook but i have already discussed that. >> host: martin wants to know what mr. levin thinks of the club for growth. >> guest: i like the club for growth. i like conservative groups, free-market groups, constitutional groups that voluntarily operate, raise money in the private sector, no government support whatsoever and use it to elect conservatives. we need more of this, not less. i like the koch brothers and cloud for growth and these other organizations. why not? >> guest: wikipedia >> host: go ahead with your question or comment for mark levin. >> caller: i enjoy you very much but i have a couple questions in light of what is going on with the nsa.

what was your opinion about the overreach of government, and the other question was in the very beginning of the formation of this country we had great minds that got together to disagree moving forward. to do we have now, the same mindset will we have another renaissance in that regard? >> guest: there is a dearth of such people at this point be honest with you so i don't know, i don't know. look at congress. what a disaster. i could go around the country, pick people who are smarter, wiser, better judgment, who look at what is going on in terms of the debt and the deficit and not securing the border and all these things that make rational and intelligent decisions and yet there they are.

i don't know. i hope they are there somewhere. that is why i rely on state legislatures, not all of them but a separatemajority, we have to work from the bottom up. what was the -- the nsa. my position is simple. i don't think the nsa should be collecting anybody's phone-number is and sound patterns and it is a complete waste of resources and time. i don't think they can cite an example where this stopped the terrorist attempt and where it was by committee or the obama commission or whatever, they don't come up with supportable positions. i think it is unlikely and violates the fourth amendment. we will find out but i think it is stupid and it ought to stop and i think the fourth amendment or no fourth amendment it does

violate our individual rights. i am a strong supporter of intelligence gathering. i am a strong supporter of law enforcement. i worked in the justice department and the reagan administration but this goes too far. i do not like this kind -- these police state tactics. i certainly don't like them in their hands of this particular administration as we see with the irs and so forth. i don't accept that this is a justifiable national security endeavour. i see this as an out of control bureaucracy who has gone into this and people defend it in a knee-jerk way as some kind of national security intelligence thing and it is not in my view. the local cop who fought a murder scene, what does he do? he grabs the manhattan phone book and starts looking at phone-number is. you don't work case that way. you find out what the specific -- look for specific issues, specific patterns and so forth

and then go to the manhattan phone book and so forth which is why despite the effort and resources and manpower they can't show one example where this has actually stopped somebody. ..dward noden, whistle blower or traitor or somewhere in between? >> guest: somewhere in between. luckily don't have to make that decision, but i will say this. i don't like the fact he ran to china. i don't like the fact he is in russia. those or two of our enemies. on the other hand, people who say, oh, all he had to do is good to a congressman or senator with the information. are you kidding me? jo go to a congressman or senator with this kind of information n? they'd pick up the phone and call the fbi, they probably should, otherwise they might be prosecuted, too. there's no immunities to them. so, i think there should have been another way to do this rather than running off to enemy concern he has revealed to them. i don't know what the told the

chinese and russians. but he existence of this program i'm glad we know about it baas i oppose it and i -- because i oppose and it ought to be shut down. but i believe in a robust intelligence gathering, national security, law enforcement operation of the federal government because our national security is certainly one of the primary object-to-the federal government...

>> guest: and a handful of others including the, some members of the attorney general's family and justice department. and attorney general meese had just decided to leave office, and president reagan said to attorney general meese, who was coming under attack by the usual radical leftists and so forth, and president reagan said to him, i want to apologize to you, ed. all these attacks that are aimed at you are really intended for me. i'm sorry that you've had to go through this. what ronald reagan said. and that's what kind of man ronald reagan was. and ed meese too. great man. absolutely great man. >> host: well, one of the things we like to do with our "in depth"s is what they're reading, what their favorite books are. here's a look at some of mark

levin's answers.

>> host: mark levin, one of the authors you list as your favorite, raymond aron, "the opium of the intellectuals." >> guest: raymond aron, he was french. and it's an absolutely great book, and he was a great thinker. there, there's a philosopher that i didn't mention. and he wrote particularly about the cold war and the iron curtain, but he skewered in a brilliant way the elites, the so-called intellectuals. and it's just a tremendous book. and and i learned a great deal from him. you know, these masterminds. these aren't necessarily words that he used, i'm using. but he -- and he gave great examples of it and the danger of it, and he would talk about the communist elite and the liberal

elite and the academic elite. and while he didn't agree with every exact thing, but the mentality. it was just superb. he's not the only one to do that. joseph schumter is another, great economist and philosopher. he did the same thing, and he's not alone either. hayak did it in so many of his books too. so this is the problem with centralizing all these decisions. you know, we accept the fact that men and women aren't perfect or, we accept the fact that all our institutions are imperfect. then why would we give so few people so much power, so few imperfect human beings and such a narrow number of institutions so much power over the rest of us to to impose their imperfect or decisions on us. >> from your 2009 book "liberty and tyranny," you write: if

words and their meaning can be manipulated or ignored to advance the status political and party preferences, what then binds allegiances to the statists' words? >> guest: the constitution is subject to change based on what a particular court says or a particular president says or or even a particular generation says, then why are we bound by what they say? i mean, if we're not bound to the constitution, why am i bound to a presidential executive order? if the founding governing document isn't pictured stop --

to be revered, why should we honor all the other statutes and so forth? why should we? that's my point. >> host: mark levin is our guest on "in depth," we have a little less than an hour to go. bill in manhattan beach, california, you're on the air. good afternoon. >> caller: i love c-span, you guys are terrific. mark levin, i appreciate it greatly, please take care of your health, to begin with. >> guest: thank you. >> caller: secondly, allow me to appeal to you, to bring your terminology down to the average voter. the average voter is not a business owner. he's not working wall street, etc. he's an employee, by and large, and change capitalism to free enterprise. change income redistribution to what it is, heft and vote -- theft and vote buying. change entrepreneurship to job creation. so appeal to the folks who want to go with you, but they don't talk like that. thank you.

>> guest: by the way, i don't think i know anybody on wall street, come to think of it. maybe the koch brothers, but i don't want really know them either. -- i don't really know them either. >> host: have you ever met them? >> guest: i've met them once. wonderful people. like to meet hem again. meet them again. i saw george soros' photo once too. the man makes a good point, and i do try to do that. i'm not always successful at it. but the gentleman makes a good point, and, you know, i work at it as much as i can, we want to use terms that people can identify with. >> host: ashley on our facebook page posts this comment, who do you think was the best and worst presidents and why? >> guest: well, i have to go with some of the obvious. let me think, i happen to think washington was our greatest president. if washington wanted to be a

dictator, washington would have been a dictator. and you look all over the world after these so-called democratic revolutions, you look at castro, you look at these other places, zimbabwe and so forth, that's what these men did, they became dictators. washington was not only a brilliant general who helped lead the revolution against all odds and win, he was a brilliant statesman. and while the framers were united in their desire for liberty and representative government, there were a lot of opinions on how to get there. and washington knew that he could push it one way or another, and he understood that he needed to be sort of the invisible hand behind the process. i mean, the fact that he agreed to even go to the constitutional convention, he had to think about that. he decided he'd go. he wanted to go back to mount vernon. that's where he wanted to stay.

but he cared about his country deeply, to the point where he went broke, as many of these men did, because they were busy in public affairs. but so much of what washington did and said and so forth set the nation on the proper course, in my view. that's why i give it to him. a very close second would obviously be lincoln, even though the nullifiers would disagree with me and some of the neo-confederates. did lincoln do some things that we would question today? yeah. but on the other hand, the nation was -- all hell was breaking loose. and he wanted to make sure that in the end there was a nation. we can debate the particular issues and so forth, but there have been few men like lincoln, and there'll be few men like him in the future. and i would consider reagan one of our greatest presidents too. people forget, you know, for half a century or so the cold

war was a very serious matter. soviet expansion was a very serious matter. nuclear threat was a very serious matter. among other things, reagan defeated the soviet union. he defeated them through a variety of policies, and he rejects detente, and he wanted victory. and he got victory. also his economic policies. you know, 25 million jobs created. president obama stands at the white house with unemployed people lined up behind him arguing for more extended unemployment. 99 weeks, apparently, isn't enough. well, maybe under this president that's the problem. but what reagan would have done is stood behind, had people stand behind him who found new jobs. reagan created such an economic dynamo, that it went right through into the clinton administration. so, matter of fact, i don't know that this nation has ever seen anything like it, certainly not in a hundred years. so, and, of course, he brought confidence back to a country that desperately needed it after jimmy carter and the disaster

that he was. there have been a number of good presidents too. coolidge was a very, very good president. in my view, james polk was a very, very good president. some people will attack him, calling imperialism. then i guess they better leave california and some of the other states. and i thought he was a very good president. there are others, i can't remember all of them. and there have been some very, very poor presidents. martin van buren was a very poor president. james buchanan was a very poor president. oh, i'm no fan of fdr. but on the other hand, he helped bring us through world war ii, so you can't dismiss that. although the aftermath was a disaster. him and truman, as far as i'm concerned. but i think obama has to be in

the top ten of disastrous presidents, if not in the top five. what he's done to this country, what he's done to our constitutional and legal system, what he's done to one industry after another, um, his rhetoric, his propaganda, i just think he's been a very destructive and divisive force. and it's too bad, because with, you know, the first black president, and he could have done so many great things not only in bringing the country together, but advancing the cause of liberty and property rights, all these other things that were so crucial, you know, to our thinking and to our country. and he's done the opposite. he's done your knee-jerk, hard-left, radical, left-wing agenda, and it's been a complete disaster. and i think 50 years from now, um, when we look back on this or other people look back on this,

i think it'll be viewed that way. >> host: mark high school hand posts on our facebook page, mr. levin, when will the republican party give up the marriage amendment and the right-to-life amendment? they are both losers for the gop. >> guest: i don't think we lose votes over the marriage amendment or the right-to-life amendment. i mean, how many votes have we lost on that? in terms of losers for the gop, reagan was strongly pro-life and supported an amendment. obviously, the president has no role, only congress can or the states, state legislatures. and this terms of the marriage amendment -- in terms of the marriage amendment, it takes three-fourths of the states to ratify an amendment. well, you now have, what is it, 15 or 17 states that have made same-sex marriage legal, something like that, some legislatures have done it, some courts have done it.

but, so i'm not sure how that would work out. but i have no problem with people arguing for and proposing these amendments because it is the quintessential nature of federalism. in other words, as i said, it takes three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify them. so a loser for the republican party. i don't think it's a loser for the republican party. i think what's a loser for the republican party are people who lead it who, who have no agenda, who have few principles and very little confidence in anything. basically, are hanging on for their own sake. but i don't think those are losers. this always amazes me, the social issues, we call them. the social issues. okay, well, call them the social issues. i don't want call them social issues. they're human issues. they're cultural issues. who keeps bringing them up?

who's fighting for same-sex marriage? who keeps bringing it up? activist groups, state legislatures, um, courts. so people who object to a particular position, they're told stop talking, stop standing for what you believe in? if your faith tells you to fight it, just give it up, it's a loser. i mean, these arguments are absurd. why should people give it up? they should fight for what they believe. and if the republican party doesn't stand for traditional values, who the hell will? so i have no problem with people fighting for these things. and i don't think it's a political loser. i think the moderates who stand for virtually nothing, they're the political losers. i mean, mccain didn't lose because he supported either of those amendments. romney didn't lose because he supported east of those amendments -- either of those amendments. they lost because they didn't have an agenda that connects with the people, and it is the liberty, free enterprise as the gentleman said of wealth

creation, job creation, business creation agenda, the growth agenda among other things. and, yes, the traditional faith agenda that i think will get people to the polls and win. i know it, as a matter of fact. reagan did it twice. >> host: pot sales in colorado, is that part of a liberty agenda? [laughter] >> guest: oh, lord. so all the potheads are going to move to colorado right now. something interesting has happened now. the federal government, to some extempt i think -- extent, i think holder announced, that they're not going to enforce a lot of these pot laws. colorado has passed a pot law. would i vote for it? no way. but they voted for it, and that's the law. that's the law in colorado. i live in virginia, what the hell am i supposed to do it, other than stay out of colorado? but that's -- and, again, the federal government has decided that it is not going to enforce the relevant federal statutes with respect to that.

and that's a different issue to me. whether or not you support those laws, how in the world does the attorney general decide i don't like that law, i'm not going to enforce it? when did he get that power? never. so that would be my issue there. if colorado wants to legalize pot, then colorado will legalize pot. i think it's stupid. i do fair decriminalizing it though. in other words, i don't think a 17-year-old or 20-year-old, a college student or some pizza delivery guy who's caught with a joint smoking a joint should have to do prison time or jail time or be charged with a misdemeanor. that bothers me. and i will tell you right here, i don't have a bible to swear on, but i've never done drugs. i've never done pot. but i still find it troublesome that if some young person has had a joint or something like that and they're caught, that they should -- i don't know what

the answer is, but i do favor decriminalization. not no criminalization, but decriminalization. >> host: from "liberty and tyranny," all cultures are not equal with as evidenced in part by the alien fleeing his own country for the american culture and the american citizen staying put. if someone were shopping for books and they came across "liberty and tyranny, "ameritopia and the liberty amendments they could only buy one, which one should they buy? >> guest: liberty and tyranny, ameritopia, and the liberty amendments. you know, i have two children -- >> host: these are books. >> guest: i know, if you could only have one, which would you have? i couldn't do that. remember what solomon did? yeah. the cutting of the baby in half? well, he wouldn't agree to that, would he? so it depends what you're

looking for. let me put it to you that way. "liberty and tyranny" is basically a primer on a restatement of conservativism. which i felt in 2009 and feel today is sorely needed. and it provides a, my conservative manifesto at the end, and i call it that to mock marx and the communist manifesto. ameritopia, which is probably the most important to me, is most difficult. it is political philosophy, and and to me, it gets to the heart of the problem with the left. and the conflict with those who believe in liberty. and the liberty amendments, i think, is crucial because i have callers to my show and others who say, okay, mark, this is all great, now what do we do about this? what do we do about this? and rather than give the usual phony, superficial response, let's elect more republicans, that's not good enough. maybe that's good enough for some, but it's not good enough

because we are unmoored from our constitutional system. we elected more republicans under george bush from 2001 to 2007. they controlled the congress and the presidency. what happened? more federal involvement in education, more federal involvement in health care, the expansion of medicare, expansion of virtually everything. the massive increase this the debt -- in the debt. i mean, that alone is not going to be enough. so the solution, i think, is rather than be superficial about it and say, oh, well, i'll just elect more of these folks -- although i favor electing many more conservative republicans -- the solution is a systemic one, and the answer is in the constitution which is the purpose of the liberty amendments. >> host: and speaking of the liberty amendments, booktv's book club is reading that this month. so if you go to booktv.org, you'll see a tab up there that says "book clubment" you can go in there, you can see some video of mark levin, some reviews of

the liberty amendments, and you can post your comments. it's very simple. so go ahead and read along and post your comments, and you can have a discussion with other readers and other viewers of booktv on "the liberty amendments." todd in winstead, connecticut, thanks for holding. you're on with mark levin. >> caller: well, thank you very much for taking my call. i listen to mark levin. i don't always agree with everything he says, but one of the problems i see with our political system is -- [inaudible] they debate issues ask ask them questions and all i get back is -- [inaudible] and with that said, that's the only pining i'm going -- opining i'm going to do, i've got three specific questions for mark, and i'd like to get his knowledgeable opinion on these areas. corporate funding of elections, doing away with the electoral college and, um, gerrymandering, doing away with gerrymandering. i'd like to hear what mark has to say about those three --

>> host: thank you, todd. we'll have to see what mr. levin says. >> guest: what was the third one? >> host: gerrymandering. >> guest: all right. let me start with corporate funding of elections. well, there are no -- there is no corporate funding of elections. what the citizens united case did was allow corporations to fund advocacy ads. so they concluded that not only should unions be able to do it, but corporations should be able to do it too. why not? as long as it's public. as long as we though who's contributing what to these campaigns. and it ought to be online so you can get it immediately, and in many cases it is. i don't have a problem with that. i have a problem with the shadowy stuff that goes on with members of congress and so forth. but out-front donations is fine. and i say this as somebody who has a real problem with how the

u.s. chamber of commerce conducts itself and is now getting into republican primaries for the purpose of defeating conservative candidates and pushing big government, corporatist republican candidates. so, but that said, principle is principle. free speech is free speech. as for the electoral college, of course i support it. there's a movement now to get rid of it just as the progressive movement got rid of the state legislatures choosing members of the senate. and, of course, they want to get rid of the electoral college and have the direct election of presidents. let us remember the mindset of the framers. the framers did not want a purely populist, majoritarian government. they didn't want a purely democratic government. they wanted a representative republic. so the purpose of the electoral college is not only to give some of the smaller states some footing in the presidential process, but as a check just in case you have the election of

somebody who is a complete and utter tyrant. so we talk about we need checks, and we need balances, and we need such things. that's the electoral college. and it amuses me, pete, that we have some senators who oppose the electoral college, and they want the direct election of the president. and i think to myself, wow, so why do we have two senators from every state? why don't we get rid of them, too s and just have a house of of representatives? here we have senators who by constitution exist two in each state, but we don't need them. we'll just have like a parliamentary system. i don't support this, i'm being sarcastic. as for gerrymandering, i don't know how you would get rid of that. i mean, these good government types pretend they'll take care of it. i don't trust most of them. but gerrymandering, it's something that's gone on for an awfully long time, and it's something that i think we're stuck with.

>> host: robert has saved us. he mails this claude pepper of florida was in the senate, then the house. >> guest: he's right. good deal, bro, that's right. i think there were others, but that's for sure. >> host: nick is calling from los angeles. you're on booktv with author mark levin. >> caller: thank you, c-span. hello, mark. you help me drive home every day and help me keep the rage on your show and not on the other drivers, so i've got to thank you for making me a better driver. but you do claim that james madison rejected nullification, but in the same document that you cite, he was actually talking about a specific process of nullification that was advocated only by south carolina. and then later james madison said that, and i quote here: nullification is the natural right which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression, unquote. so, um, with that my real question for you is, um, you know, i appreciate that you talk

about the constitution outlining a republic not a democracy, but you share a utopian foreign policy outlook which is unconstitutional. anyone can look up your statements on presidential war powers and put them up against thomas e. woods or louis fisher which c-span has also fish featured. >> host: nick, are you a fan of mark levin? [laughter] >> caller: yeah. and i'm also a fan of george washington, as he is. if you quote george washington, he said the nation which indulges toward another as an habitual hatred or an that establish wall fondness is in some ways a slave -- >> host: nick, why are you a supporter of so-called nullification? >> guest: well, i'm a supporter of nullification because i think it runs to the heart of what a constitutional republic is all about. and i think you can't have a republic and an empire too. so i think mark levin's blind spots on foreign policies and

nullification really undermine what, you know, he purports to be about. and i think -- >> host: all right. we'll get an answer. just, mark -- or, nick, just a little bit more from you though. what kind of of work do you do? you say mark levin is on your raid slow on the way home. what kind of work do you do? >> caller: well, i'm struggling in this obama economy, so i have a few different part-time jobs. i work at a couple convert venues and ucla, also an inalternative with a nonprofit organization. so, you know, i'm very passionate about what's going on in the world. i think it affects my generation. i'm 28 years old, it affects my generation very much. so i pay attention to all the voices and rye and stay involved but also got to pay the bills with some part-time jobs too. >> host: nick, thank you very much for calling in. mark levin. >> guest: well, here we go again. let's see. people have to read this 1830

letter on their own. there's nothing, it's not a narrow letter. it's a very long letter. of he's addressing more than what nick has to say. he also is engorsing article v which nick doesn't endorse. he didn't say it, but he doesn't. they can quote professor this or professor that all they want, there are a lot of knuckleheads who are professors too. and so what? the fact of the matter is, and there's an 1832 letter that madison also wrote, but they say it's specific to south carolina. there's nothing i can say that's going to dissuade nick or others because he didn't tell you what nonprofit group he works for. there's a couple groups that keep pushing nullification. i'm surprised you haven't had a call for secession yet. i'm not in favor of destroying the republic. i'm not in favor of eliminating the union. i believe we fought a civil war over this. but nullification is not in the constitution.

nullification was not brought up at the constitutional confession -- convention. it was discussed leiter. there are some -- later. there are some definitive letters about it. but nub of that matters -- none of that matters. there is no historical support from this. you know, these guys who are originalists who claim to be, well, except in this case because they're so angry at the federal government, they're willing to turn to anything including this what i call neo-confederate agenda. the fact of the matter is it doesn't work, and you can't pursue it, and it won't work. the neoconservative agenda that i speak to is they want to see states split off from the union. and, good lord, are we going to go through that again? i mean, sorry, folks, don't count me this in on that. i'm considered pushing the edge of the envelope with the liberty amendments, but these guys are already on the other edge of the envelope, and those are the talking points that are argued, that are put out there time and time again. ignore this letter, madison

didn't mean this. the tenth amendment means nullification. and yet they interpret this stuff like the liberals interpret the constitution. >> host: all right. well, we have taken two calls on it now and had good discussions, so we'll end our discussion of it there too, as well. but here's an e-mail from warren who's in los angeles as well. kabc radio in l.a. airs the mark levin show with a three-hour time delay. 95% of the h.a. audience is prevented from calling in and participating in your discussions, what can we do to convince kabc to carry your program live? >> guest: well, what can i say? i guess i'm just glad i'm on kabc. yeah, i tell all the affiliates we only have a relative small percentage that run the show tape-delayed, and they do it, i think, often to run a local host in the slot. but the vast majority of our affiliates we are live. well, you can tell them.

but there are also other -- here's the thing. some of us in talk radio have other platforms you can listen to. i'm not talking specifically about this particular writer and kabc. but i have an app, mark levin app, which has half a million people who use it. the i heart radio app is another way to listen to the show live, you can be your own program director. obviously, we do a live stream on the internet, and i'm on satellite, the patriot. so we're on terrestrial radio like kabc, we're on satellite, i've got two apps where you can pick i us op on your smartphone and on the internet. so if you want to hear us live, you can listen to us live. >> host: tony is calling from woodburn w new york. go ahead with your question or comment for mark levin. >> caller: yeah, hi. this is tony -- [inaudible] i'm not going to be as long-winded as your previous caller. i have one very simple question, i'm not going to give too much

background,and i just want your opinion. here's the question. what, if anything, should we do about the 14th amendment? >> guest: in what way? what do you mean? >> host: he is now gone. >> guest: well, it depends -- the 14th amendment's not the shortest amendment, so i, i would need to know more what he means. >> host: do you write about the 14th amendment? >> guest: very little. but there's a number of things he could mean by that, so rather than me doing this, just throwing out three, four or five things, i -- he should have been more specific. >> host: garrett is in cumberland, maryland. hi, garrett. >> caller: hi. and hi, mark, thank you so much for all you do. i i want to thank you for giving us the solution, because i've with just been talking to fellow conservatives and libertarians, this is contributing to a lot of excitement among the grassroots. >> guest: thank you. >> caller: i want to thank you also for forwarding along my article on the hi eleven y'all. i recently got a letter published in the local paper

spreading the word and talking about this to people. i find that there is a lot of excitement. there are also two kinds of people that seem to have some reservations about it. one is the runaway convention crowd, and i believe that those people will come around to it. the other is this crowd that has been a couple times today that's talking about nullification. and i wanted you to speak to, have the opportunity to speak to the superiority of article v to a nullification strategy and also that nullification, um, is it even finish would it not put the court system in, um -- >> guest: yes. >> caller: -- in charge of that. >> guest: all right. first of all, you're exactly right. the brilliance of mason and the framers at the constitutional convention with the state convention process is that they're proposing, they're allowing the proposal of actual amendments to address things that have occurred in the

structural abuses of the constitutional system. nullification doesn't address any of that. that's number one. number two, the supreme court will allow nullity case, already said it won't allow nullification. so what are they going to do about that? under the amendment ross, state legislatures can override a supreme court decision. but the nullification, it's an ark call. it's not -- there is no constitutionallal basis for it. now that said, one of the callers earlier -- what did he say, neo-con and also that i, i support american empire and stuff of this sort. i don't know where these anytime wits get these ideas. why, because i supported the troops during the iraq war? which i did and i do and would coagain today? do again today? so we're talking about an

extreme fringe element here. like i said, the neo-confederate element. not even mainstream libertarianism. there's extreme fringe. there's a couple of groups out there. they're flooding your phones out now, they're nod flooding your e-mails, this is what they do. but they have absolutely zero impact on the body politic for the american people. the american people are not going to support secession. the american people are not going to support one state nullifying a federal law, 12 states nullifying -- they're not going to support that kind of anarchy. in my view, what the american people want is a return to constitutional government. or where the state legislatures have power, and the federal government has less power. that's what we're talking about. not destroying the constitutional system or the constitution, not destroying the republic, not destroying the union, but addressing it. and reestablishing the constitutional system. i have nothing in common with

these other folks, and i think the vast majority of americans would have nothing in common with these other folks. >> host: where did this movement thing begin? >> guest: it's a couple of groups and a couple of professors. but i don't know the history of it. >> host: why have they chosen you as -- >> guest: they haven't just chosen me. they do this all over the place. it's just that i happen to be on c-span2. >> guest: gary e-mails in to you i'm an african-american man with conservative views, mostly a social and small government conservative. never voted democrat in my entire life. what is your message to african-americans and, for that matter, other minorities in the u.s.. while many african-americans are social conservatives on the major issues, same-sex, abortion, etc., how can conservatives and republicans reach minorities that vote traditionally democrat? >> guest: i think the general categoryies of promoting

individual liberty, free enterprise and wealth creation which brings opportunity and traditional american values which would include the power of state legislatures to make many of these decisions, in applying them to current events and current issues is the way to go. and i think that's what a campaign needs to do to be successful. it's not a question of what do you give to minorities, the hispanics are over here, the blacks are over here, the whites are over here, the straight people are here, the lesbians are -- that's not the way we should look at america. we shouldn't look at america like liberals do and break us down into physical features and sexual preferences. we should talk about america as americans, and we should, in fact, state publicly to the left during these campaigns that we

reject their efforts to divide us along all these different lines. and i think a conservative republican candidate can talk about bringing people together to advance the cause of liberty and opportunity and wealth creation and let the liberals talk about extending unemployment insurance and doing all these other things while we're talking about a positive, forward-looking, growth-oriented agenda based on good old american values. >> host: from "ameritopia," have the pennsylvania love yang appeals to equaltarianism and the fomenting of action through class warfare conditioned the people to accept or even demand compulsory uniformity as just and righteous. >> guest: well, that's the question i ask. is it too late? and i don't think it's too late, but i think we're getting to a late time.

but i do have open that we can avoid it, that we can avert this. you can see the reaction to obamacare. people do not like uniformity and conformity, because it does not address their own specific needs and interests and motivations. and obamacare is all about uniformity and conformity and top-down authoritarianism. so at least in regard to that, that's a positive. but on the other hand, a majority of those who voted also voted for the man who pushed the very legislation that they detest. so we have a problem here, and i think part of the problem is that the republicans have to offer the american people a serious alternative. >> host: robert calbert in chicago e-mails in to you mr. levin, you listed several great libertarian thinkers, friedman, hayak, where do you, a thoughtful conservative, differ with libertarians? >> guest: i would say on economic issues i agree with

libertarians mostly. i would say on some of the so-called social issues i would disagree with them. for instance, if a libertarian believes that some guy on the corner should be free to sell heroin, i'm not sure i can endorse that position. as a matter of fact, i wouldn't. so i'm not saying that's all their positions and so forth. but i would say in the main i'm probably a conservative/libertarian. but i like to call myself a constitutionalist. and i believe there is a movement, a reinvigorated if not new movement of constitutional conservativism which is something that i am proud to be part of and something i'm crowd to be pushing. constitutional conservativism. not secession, not nullification, not destroying our country, not destroying the union, not destroying the constitution, but reinvigorating i. >> host: richard e-mails in: mark levin's live coverage on

his show of the capture of the boston marathon bombers earlier this year was compelling, exciting, accurate and entirely lacking in the speculative, opinionated, talking head speak that is so wearisome in the mainstream media. >> guest: that was a remarkable day not only because of the horrific terrorist attack and all those people who were maimed and killed, but, you know, when you're a talk show host, you have to decide how to cover these things. and most talk show hosts, if they can't find reporters on the scene, they're watching one of the cable networks or something and reporting what -- they're regurgitating the news that is somewhere else. well, my call screener and producer -- and i have two great guys, rich and mike, and they've been with me from the beginning. well, they were listening to the police scanner. so we were listening to the police scanner, i believe it was

the local police and the state police. two police scanners. so as things were actually breaking, i mean, breaking, they were telling me exactly what was being said on the police scanner, so we were breaking news on our coverage because of the great radio station wrko among my affiliates -- and it is a wonderful station in boston -- so we were breaking the news without any opinion whatsoever as we were hearing it. and then near the end somebody figured it out. i don't know if it was the local police or the state police. and they said, you know, careful what you're saying on the monitor. i also made clear that nothing we were saying was endangering what they were doing. nothing. because, obviously, terrorist number two didn't have access to a radio and had no idea what i was saying on the radio. so that was a very compelling evening.

it was quite remarkable. >> host: lee, rockville, b maryland. please go ahead with your question or comment for mark levin. >> caller: good afternoon, gentlemen. enjoying the discussion. mark, you and i are both natives of the city of brotherly love, and we're both roughly the same age. and i think a lot of what you say makes a great deal of sense; limited government, libertarianism. it's, it makes an awful lot of sense. but you and i remember decades ago when 40, 50 or more thousand people were getting killed on highways. you know, automobile accidents. well, what happened was the department of transportation came in and put in safety regulations. now it's half that. so those were very, very good government interventions, from my perspective. and that's why i'm so completely amazed, and i support conservative republicans a great

deal. guns, mark, are dangerous. they are very, very dangerous. and the position of the republican party, as far as i can tell, is give everyone a gun. no background checks. if someone is wearing a viva osama bin laden sweatshirt and goes up to a gun show and says -- in an arab head address and -- head dress and goes up to a gun show and, you know, that person can order, you know, can walk away with the -- >> host: all right -- >> caller: -- an ak-47. >> host: i think we get the point. >> guest: is that caller from colorado? i just wonder if he's into the the new movement there. >> host: rockville, maryland. >> guest: the suburbs. what was his question? oh, safety. let me explain something to this gentleman. the deaths on the road today are not significantly reduced

because of safety belts. but let me tell you something, the automobile that most people drive is lighter now than it ever was due to cafe standards. and i explain this in "liberty and tyranny." all of the deaths and all of the casualties on our highways as a result of cafe standards -- and it's remarkable to me that you wouldn't call this program because you're so concerned about human life particularly on our highways and reject government intervention in that case with the cafe standards maiming and killing so many of our fellow americans on the streets, and they keep making these cars ligher and smaller and smaller and lighter. so i'm sure you would join with me in objecting to that. that's number one. number two, the republican party supports giving everybody a gun? well, that's not true, but the -- and i can't speak for the republican party. i'll speak for myself. we have something called a second amendment, sir. just like we have a fourth

amendment and a first amendment and a fifth amendment and a ninth amendment. it's nice that you don't like guns, it's nice that you have an opinion about guns. that's all well and good. but you don't have the right to tell law-abiding citizens who want guns for safety or hunting or whatever the reason is as long as it's lawful that they can't. i'm sorry, that's what the constitution provides. just like i can't say see that guy in rockville, maryland? he doesn't deserve due process because, you know, due process for a guy like that endangers the community. so this is the problem with the left. they can't decide which parts of the constitution they like, if any of the constitution. and there have been study after study by, among others, john lott and so forth that contradict your premise. whatever i say here won't matter to you anyway, but it may matter to somebody out there. >> host: doreen e-mails in:

people from all political persuasions cite tokeville's great work. is that because de tocqueville was unclear in practical implications or because of something else? >> guest: well, i don't see him being cited that often by harry reid or nancy pelosi, and i don't even know if they've read the two volumes of democracy in america or have them read to them. i have no idea. these are people that said you have to read the obamacare law to though what's in it, and apparently none of them read it including the president, because they didn't know what's in it. so i doubt that the left, many, cite alexis de tocqueville. i cite him in the at least two of my books because what he said so pertinent to what's going on in this country today. he was prescient. and he was a man who was very concerned about little d democracy and was a great fan of america as he traveled this country but also saw some weaknesses that he feared. and was very, very concerned

about centralized government. so i don't know if the left cites him or not or what they cite him for, but he was a brilliant man and very worth citing. >> host: and he's features prominently in "ameritopia." ed's calling from toledo. >> caller: good afternoon, gentlemen, and shalom. what i wanted to bring up, i'm a 76 article iv, section 4 republican. and i don't have much respect for the republican party, although i do can belong to it since it's near ohio. but the northwest ordnance and what allowed ohio to become a state, it had to have a republican constitution and a republican government. article iv, section 4 gash -- guarantees me and my descendants a republican form of government. now the big lie is that we're a democracy. so i guess noah webster, who could write a dictionary,

defined republican because it gives sovereignty so we have no king but king jesus -- >> host: so, ed, we're running low on time here, what's your point? >> caller: my point is that you like democrats and -- liken democrats and republicans. mark, why don't we go back to these original words? we have a republic with a republican form of government because it grants sovereignty to the individual. >> guest: i don't know what to say. i'm not sure what the question is. you asked me in the first hour, somebody did, why do i cut people off? now you know why. >> host: dorothy, ocean township, new jersey. please go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: mr. levin, it's a privilege to speak to you. i had the honor of seeing you speak at a -- [inaudible] a few months ago. and you are an inspiration and a true patriot.

i wonder, it bothers me when liberals never fail to demonize conservatives as much as they can, and it gets very disheartening when i'm in a discussion with a liberal and the topic of the president and his policies come up. and right away the response is, oh, you're a racist, you're saying that because he's black. and is there a solution to this, or is there no solution? it's just something we have to live with until the end of the term? >> you know, in life there are people who you can communicate with and try and have a rational discussion with, and then there are the drones. so if you happen to be confronted with the former, then take the time to really have a discussion. and and try and persuade the person or learn from the perp. if, on the other hand, you're confronted with a drone, my suggestion is move along, be done with it. >> host: dan, st. paul, minnesota. got just a couple minutes left here on our program.

>> caller: yeah. i'm just calling to say, comment about the general welfare clause. a couple of, i think, liberals had previously mentioned using the general welfare clause to enforce government action. i read a wonderful work on that. in -- [inaudible] v. davis the supreme court used the general welfare clause to justify taking money from one group of people, giving it to another to justify transfer payments. yet in the 1780s the word "general" as an adjective which was in all kinds of writings meant to apply to everybody or nobody. the supreme court changed the usage of the word "general" from the authors' intent to justify taking money from one subpart to a group, giving it to another. i just give that as one example to come to the point in mark's book in the liberty amendments, the excellent point that we need to be able to use the legislature, the congress to override these ridiculous supreme court decisions.

>> host: all right, dan, thank you. we got the point. >> guest: and he makes a very good point. there are many more who makes that point, madison, jefferson, joseph story, i could go on and on and on. the perversion of the general welfare clause is almost comical and yet, you know, the left uses it because it's a simple -- hey, the general welfare. it just demonstrates their contempt for the constitution. >> host: what do you think of john roberts? >> guest: not much. nothing he can do from here on. can, in my view, justify what he did in the obamacare decision. he was part of the reagan administration. he was a fairly conservative lawyer in the justice department before i got there. and he knows better. he knows what he did. i read his majority decision. it is a disgrace. it's incoherent. it's illogical. and it was result-oriented.

so he, he's going to have to live with that. that will be his historical reputation. that'll be his epithet. and he helped unleash this disastrous law on in this country. it's unconstitutional in numerous ways. and for him to turn the tax section of the constitution on its head and to rewrite the statute and rewrite the history where obama and the democrats said this is not a tax, it's a penalty, and he says, oh, no, no, it's a tax, and and under our tax clause in the constitution, it's just so outrageous, what he did, that i had a lot of respect for him. i have zero respect for him now. >> host: bill beatty asks via twitter, will landmark legal join with the 11 attorneys general in court on president obama's legal authority to change the 2010 affordable care act? >> guest: we don't -- we provide advice, and we are provide advice. -- we will provide

advice in a lot of these areas. for instance, there's over 40 cases on the liberty issue under obamacare where we're working with other groups. we've got several pieces of litigation going against the environmental protection agency. so, yes, we will provide whatever support they want from us. >> host: for the last three hours, mark levin has been our guest on booktv's "in depth" program. he is the author of five nonfiction books and working on another one as well. his first book came out in 2005, "men in black: how the supreme court is destroying america." "rest pewing -- rescuing sprite" came out in 2007. not a lot of public policy in that one, but a best with seller. "liberty and tyranny," in '09. "ameritopia" in 2012, and "the liberty amendments" just came out this past year, "restoring the american republic."

by the way, "the liberty amendment" is booktv's book club selection for the month of january. so if you're a booktv watcher and want to read along with other booktv viewers, go to booktv.org: you can pick up the liberty amendments, you can read along, and then you can post your comments at booktv.org. it's very simple, just click on the book club tab up at the top of the page, and you'll see there there's a format for posting your comments, and you can read along all month on your own time. we'll be posting questions and comments as we go throughout the month on the liberty amendments. mark levin, thanks for your time today on booktv. >> guest: great honor, pete,

..

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> here is a look at the best-selling nonfiction books according to publishers weekly, the list reflects sales as of dec. 20 ninth 2013. political commentator bill o'reilly and historian mark d a dugar for killing jesus. pulitzer prize-winning journalist charles krauthammer's things that matter, three point of passion, pastimes and politics. you can watch his talk about his book online at booktv.org. third is guinness world records 2014 followed by david and goliath, a series of case studies exploring why people decide to rebel against authority. the fifth best selling book of the week according to publishers weekly is george washington's

secret six, co-authored by brian kill lead of fox news and don yeager about a spy ring in the american revolution. he recently appeared on booktv's author interview program after words and you can watch it any time by going to booktv.org. read drummond's cookbook is next, the pioneer woman cook, food for my frontier. seventh, experiences fighting for women's rights in pakistan. another program available to watch any time on booktv.org. the tv show "duck dynasty" comes to print in the eighth book, psychology 1, a collection of personal stories by side robert. ninth on the list the bully pulpit by doris kerns goodwin focusing on the relationship between president theodore roosevelt and william howard taft. go to booktv.org to see the talk at the miami book fair. finally political commentator glenn beck's miracles and

massacres, true and untold stories about the making of america. these are the current best-selling nonfiction books according to publishers weekly. >> at the time the central intelligence agency had really taken a beating. they had been through a grueling hearings before congress about who should be blamed for 9/11 and whether the cia failed to watch list, certain individuals and otherwise failed to share information from the fbi that might have foretold or allowed to the fbi to investigate the plots on 9/11. the cia it is fair to say, really buffeted, the 9/11 commission came along and had another set of hearings which were very tough. the chairman of the 9/11 commission noted there staff statements about what happened,

what the cia did on 9/11 was an indictment of the agency's performance. as second factor that occurred that contributed to this momentous change of the events in the fall of 2004 was the 9/11 commission itself. they were a group of nationally prominent men and women who were able to build a national audience through a season hearings about what happened on 9/11 and they have a lot of influence. they constructed their own strategy to be able to build a legislative proposals that would have a chance of succeeding and could be acted on very swiftly. the third factor occurring at the time was failure or assessment of iraq wm d coming into stark relief in 2004. the senate intelligence -- >> 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

of the page and click search. you can share anything you see on booktv.org easily by clicking share on the upper left side of the page and selecting the form at. booktv streams live online for 48 hours every weekend with top nonfiction books and authors. booktv.org. >> now as promised on booktv we will take you live to the national press club to hear from political strategist mary matalin and james carville talking about their lives since the 1992 presidential elections, the political landscape of the last 20 years and their decision to move to new orleans to raise their daughters. this event is scheduled to go an hour and a half, introductions now under way. >> on this rainy rainy day. my name is joe lutrack, member of the book and author committee and contributing writer to a site called the good in sports,

we do stories about good things that come out of sports, not all the bad stuff you see most of the time. we are very pleased to welcome mary matalin and james carville and don't need an introduction in this city. they were a big part of it for 20 some years. they will be talking about their book love and war, 20 years, three president, two daughters and one louisiana home. copies of the book are available outside, and eat stale benefits the national journalism institute, the office will be signing copies after the event, they will not be personalizing the book, please stay seated until we exited the room after the event. then you can start lining up for the signings of the books. there will be of volunteer

standing where you will start lining up. when the question and answer session starts, line up at one of the microphones and we will get to as many as possible. also, please turn off or silence your cellphones. yes, james, you are out of touch for the next hour. a couple of the upcoming book events, we will have more added but on march 6th at 1:00 p.m. dave barry, you can date boys when you are 40. on june 18th at 6:30, donna, written in my own heart's blood. tonight's guests, this morning's guest have been called the political world's odd couple. if so after reading the book you might be surprised james is more

like the fussy felix and mary more like a casual oscar. mary matalin grew up in chicago, james carville in louisiana. they both went into politics in the 90s, matt, fell in love and married in 1993 just after they worked on opposing campaigns in the election. should be an interesting time here. we are going to conduct this a little differently so the office -- i am going to sit down and converse with them, ask them some questions and then we will have time afterwards for your questions and plan to end this event right around noon. [applause] >> let's start with where the book starts and ends, new orleans. you both decided you wanted to

leave d.c. at the same time or was there a lot of discussion about this move? >> that is the great place to start and a great place to talk. ♪ summertime ♪ ernie els a have a son, todd lorenzo, who is here. thank you for coming out. saturday afternoon in the rain. new orleans is playing the new orleans saints, playing the seattle seahawks today. i want to hear something. okay. i bring that up because that is what we play. he is saying we are 8 point under dog and i say we are going to win. i was in new orleans 20 years before i met james carville but after katrina when he said sugar, we are going to become a

sliver on the river, as i am from chicago, anybody from the midwest, you know that if you are all women any words that follow sugar, you are going to melt. value anywhere, honey. the issue, kids were 10 and 12, we built our careers, i was nervous about having the children to be in proximity with his academic record of 11 years at louisiana state university. so i will let you pick it up from there. >> thank you very much. when it became public, a reliable section, they called me

and said i am like an old jew going back to jerusalem. after the events of august of 2005 i had always lived up river from new orleans and spend a lot of time there. my grandmother from there. i was used, abused, par take the culture and assumed it would always be there for my use and pleasure whenever i wanted. and then the story started coming in whether people were going to come back, and a thousand trumpets were lost. and this kind of thing, understand the things that sets new orleans off from every other place in the united states, we were not economically significant area in terms of political power.

380,000 people. what we are is one of the most culturally significant places in the world. we have an identifiable culture you know when you see it, what the food tastes like, what the music sounds like, what a carnival crew is, what a funeral is, what architecture looks like, the idea that this whole thing could go, it was terrifying to me. my wife when we got married, she always loved the sound, the fragrance, the church bells, the rumbling of the streetcar, sounds like no other place, but it is very very fragile. environmentally fragile, politically fragile, culturally fragile, and i didn't know what, but i just couldn't -- profound

deep freshen. if we were down in 2007 and just like -- and she was as much as i was and fought and schemed and plotted and a couple other things to get to washington, i liked it here, i loved the airport and the park, and it was not funny, and the data, june 13th, i put in the book, going to lincoln stein, if any of you have been there kind of luxury, and never -- got the

worst you can imagine. it was almost like you want to leave, kind of open the book. and we look back and talk about it sometimes. in some ways it turned out great. it is one of the great success stories and now that it is doing better seemed like a cool and smart thing to do. a gamble we took moving our children, but very young, and like a place with a culture, it is hard to break into it if you are a child, not the easiest place, we had two girls. it wasn't the easiest thing and one of the things is if you aren't there or what i call the

engineering failure of 2005, like you didn't fight the battle, and they get fined, but there was an allotment of risk involved here. they were still stacked up from the storm, nowhere near where we are today. it is like you walk into a casino and put $10,000 and it shows up black and it was really stupid to do that, thank god -- >> i hope that was a metaphor. while we are in washington which we still do love, where the girls came back to school on the grounds that mother you don't provide enough structure for me, i want to say something good

about politics. rock bottom after we were after katrina, you can't have the luxury of having the kind of disputes we have. you got to come up with solutions and we literally, mary landrieu did not want to run and james did what he could and i said i couldn't support everything, but these issues that were practical conservative applications, i would be in league with three republicans in new orleans. and to watch politics and policy work and work quickly was such an inspiration. this sense of loss of confidence in all of our institutions and

the sense of the kline and all that things can change that if people want to change them. people want to protect something they love which they did in new orleans, we went from 15 feet underwater to red-eye the time of the super bowl we were number one. and in silicon valley south wore no. one entrepreneur, i could go on and on but this changes certain progress there is a way -- while i am here i want to talk about coastal's restoration and the everglades. you actually care about coastal restoration. 40% of the sea food and energy and 40% of your food comes up and down the mississippi and to the extent that coast is eroding is going to impact the economy of the entire country. there are a lot of issues there

that we agree on politically met except for this 8.-- we like being on the same side of things. >> let's talk about something we are not on the same side of, cats. >> i just have to say this. this is my motto. the presence of many cats is not proof of crazy cat ladyism. i take the point that cat hair in the butter is not pleasant. met but one day, i came down and my favorite cat, i have 12 of them. this is a black cat. hard to name cats creatively when you have 12. he was black.

half of his face was chart of. what happened? he was getting near the butter and somehow the stove turned on and burned half his face off. there are instances of kitty pyromaniac in the house and we have a few dogs and pet rats and birds but most of them are rescues. it is a good rescued place, the society in washington. so seriously about animals, we have brought some animals and people who had a difficult time socializing, you may remember when the dalai lama was here, one domestic place, battered women's shelter where we brought women together, since to do the program, a version of the program at walter reed so i have

a larger interest in animals and i am going to agree with you that we should put a lid on the butter. >> i could ride a horse before i could rise a bicycle. and not 4 h club, call me weird, i do not like animals in food prep area. maybe that is just some kind of cuckoos thing, and but when i see a cat licking the roof, it turns me off. i am fine. i can still get on a horse today. i had the best childhood you could imagine but i was really young. my grandfather grew rice. how you grow rice is nothing but mud and water and nothing better

for a 5-year-old going around in mud and water. >> he is not an anti hero. he knows what the animals mean to me, they mean nothing to him, they are not allowed anywhere near him and he doesn't know their names but every time we go to the e emergency that, why can't these bastards learn how to cross the street? just has -- the whole animal kingdom. >> reporter: you gave up working and u.s. elections and only work on 4 in elections. explain why you made that decision. >> when president clinton was 48 -- i just couldn't want to be

some guy in center field. and go back to that time, is clinton sending somebody in, what does that mean? the real truth is the united states wants to become a famous person, being the famous person. 22 different countries, if i like it, getting a little -- last trip i took was to indonesia, went to singapore, they just canceled which was one. i enjoyed doing that. i do it much more subtle now. i had run, really involved in

u.s. politics for a period of time and what i did was i was a campaign managers so i didn't have a firm. direct mail, tv spot, i just got paid for working 20 hours a day. and you couldn't -- it was a decision that i made and i look back on ad that i made bad decisions in life and that was not one of them. the game passes you by. when we did the '92 campaign the cellphone was as big as george stephanopoulos. so i am reading this stuff about social media, the big battle and everything, and that is good. there is something to be said

for overstaying your time. you and i have a common affection for sports and there is nothing worse than to see a former great athlete trying to take another year or two, you got to -- what is ecclesiastes, there is a time for everything and it was a time for me to do it. >> can i add to this? not to but in to your question, but i think because there is an emerging perception that people in politics, political operatives, whenever, okay? when we got into it and i am happy to be a woman of a certain age, why can't we say i am 60? i am happy to be 60.

>> i wish i was 60. >> he is almost 60. very upset that girls are both gone, his life is over, i am chopped liver, i guess. in our day, it wasn't -- when we got married we had nothing. he had a bike that i bought him. he never had a car. maybe he had a horse. since getting out of domestic politics, involved in politics, care about what it is a political system is trying to deliver. so at my respect, the state department's request, joins me in how to do it, in jordan to teach the iraqi women how to fight human rights in their constitution. you claim to get there because

right after the revolution i didn't know the husband but the wife worked for reagan, volunteered to do these things because freedom throughout the world is important, politics as a sport, as a career, a lot of people involved in it. and did not understand a word that james is the same except he said one thing he got, a you finish this the hardest thing

a lot. one of my favorite stories is an old friend of mine, asked to meet with a man who was running

for president of afghanistan. so talking to him, richard holbrooke at the state department, is there any problem with me in the u.s. working for this guy? james is the finest man i know. doing little investigation, a fine guy. i know he can't pay me, can't pay my air fare. you are a member of the kennedy generation, you have to go. john kennedy, i guess i got to go. so i told him. i go to kabul and try to stay in his house and write a campaign plan and on the way out gives me a rock. two weeks later i got reimbursed for my effort which was not a bad deal. at least i wasn't out 13,000

grand for the ticket. >> you want to hear me fight about you would think a guy who was going to cover where his wife had been, had been all over afghanistan in an armored vehicles, snipers, would have asked me something about the kid. he is driving around in some little bus, i e.d.s everywhere, this is pretty scary when the traffic starts. >> sometimes it was after i left, totally blew his house up it was a different thing, a kind of campaign plan for afghanistan, was really different. 1% is what we were predicted to get, a great guy, great

experience. can't win them all. what is the old saying? people say they lost races and political consultants and people said they never lost a race and call those liars. >> it is 1992, the election is over and you don't have a job, you don't have much money and you end up on what you call the first check fight show. and you also write that fish show was great until it became a hit. explain what you mean by that. >> i never wanted to be on tv. i don't like being on tv to this day. i like radio. i have a face for radio. when george h. w. bush who i

adored was losing, this happens on campaigns, nobody wanted us to go out and defend, start jumping ship, and the worse the numbers got, the more i went out there so i became the face of defense of losing this campaign and he became the hero, thinking about the mind. so not only did i have no job but i had no prospects for a job because i was a loser. i had no money coming in. i have a mortgage. i can to live in an apartment. somebody called up and said do you want to do a tv show? i hate tv. you are good on tv. on a topic. anyway i had to pay the bills, i

didn't think anybody was watching us. it was wayne's world on estrogen, like being in a basement, all we did is have a bottle of wine before the show and just talk about what ever and the next thing we knew it was, this was before there was political tv, cnbc before it was cnbc. when i say it was such a low-budget show, our furniture had to go out in the hallway, pull in one of these tables, we did our own makeup, our own hair, and all of a sudden it became this cult hit. who knew? we found out people started spending as furniture, and senators and congress people don't follow this stuff but

their staffers do so we started getting great guests and then it became -- when you have a hit and all of a sudden everybody gets involved and give you, fix your hair and get different clothes and do real interviews. so i quit. >> my favorite moment of the show, tony cornhouse was a regular guest and marion james was singing into hair brushes, he didn't have their hair rushed. >> and we were singing going to the chapel and tony is like where is my hair rushed, never stopped, the hair cut, tony insisted on going there to -- he went and got his beard done and eyebrows and hair done, i forgot

about that. tony, if you are watching you know it is true. >> 22-22 this year and san diego. san diego covers it, 10 point dogs, gone to the top of the mountain and peeked over, 23-22 again, the spread. i'd tell you the number of people that i run into in washington, i heard you picked tony's radio show. it is like released pending the kind of thing -- i didn't silence everything when i was here. the weather was going to be horrible, can't think about 4:30 kickoff. and we still have nationals tickets. that was happening last year. sports have always been a big

part of my life. it is great because i am home, going to games of the pelicans. let's talk about something else. >> let's go to my last question before we go to the audience question. this isn't really from the book but i have one political question. what is one piece of advice each of you would give to your own party that there not doing currently that would improve that party? >> i don't like doing tv but i am on tv enough to be not saying this for the first time and not the last time i will say it. republicans have to be republicans. they can't be a lesser version of democrats. i grew up as a democrat on the south side of chicago and became a conservative when i started

reading and paying taxes. i know why i am a conservative. i know what the constitution is. i am and in paris this and at burke, we have a long history of what works and what doesn't work and good intent is not the equivalent of good outcome and why republicans can't in a full throated way say what the alternative to good intention politics is or call people who have empirically done successful and turnaround and be for exactly what they call the wacko bird, i don't think that is going to work so what we need to do for the midterms, and everyone wants to jump to 2016, 2016 is going to be under 2014,

as is always the case and i think in 2014 we will look at the records of a lot of governors who were elected in the 2010 tsunami and look at the records. it is not a party thing. was in new orleans. look what happens when you incentivize business by lowering taxes, regulations that are understandable wendy will be enforced, balanced budgets. i don't think we talk about that in of. we too defensive, too much time defending straw men, the obama people, the democrats accuse us of hating women and then we spend all the time saying no, no, we really love women. that is a waste of time. it is just not -- we need to quit being so defensive about

things that not true and say what we really believe in and what really works. >> let me start by saying an unbelievable differential between economic performance on democrats and republicans in the last six years, is not even close. i agree with carey -- harry truman, if you want to look like a republican, vote like a democrat. [applause] >> we have -- in my opinion, and before this, we have a terrible problem in this country and it is going on for a long time, all the sudden the deficit was going to kill us, then health care costs were going to kill us, that did not tell us, then energy dependence was going to

kill us. the things we have been unable to do, and unable to do for a long time is grow in comes. we go and got every other thing we do and chase everything that comes and every deal we can and where is the joint committee on income growth? where is the foundation the books in to this? where is the zillionaire to say 80% of the people in this country over a longer period of time is stagnant? when they give the bank credit, we know how to create wealth but don't know how to distribute it. with the democrats should do is be succinct, we have done a lot of research, it is not an overnight, no one thing you're going to do to getting comes to grow again. their air some things you can do

to help so, this -- i think the emphasis on the argument about inequality misses the mark a little bit. if your income hasn't gone in 20 years is not so much that the 1 present income has grown 300%, yours hasn't grown. if your is grew 20%, that would be much better. and so it is not -- to get back to it, it should say this is the assignment, this is the job, the president can easily say we have an economic process to deal with, bank failures and a lot of things but now our charge for the future of this country is to somehow or another bring the prosperity across the country

and the more we tell that story, the simpler we tell that story, the better off we are going to be. so everything we do, go before congress, speeches, talking, that should be the defining mission of the democratic party. [applause] >> last place that will come from to quote a former democratic president, the era of big government is over. if we want to do what he is saying, it has to start locally. and trickle-down if i can use that term. >> now we are going to your questions so there is the microphone there and microphone there. just alternate as people get to them.

so we start here. >> good to see you, thanks for what you are doing. what do you both think of kenneth starr now in retrospect? and the other thing i want to ask you is when you were strategizing, this is what we were asking ourselves, talking about campaigns when you are both involved how did you protect the confidence? did it ever get broken? did you by accident conveyed to your team the strategy of the other person? how would you protect that in your conversations if something needed to be done and it is suddenly conveyed to the other side? >> let me say i always liked kenneth starr but i have not thought about him in ten years. at the time of that whole recent unpleasantness, i had my second day being post partner and all i

cared about was my husband was out there defending a lie. i said how could you defend this why? he said sugar, if i did some things that stupid with the girls that young i would lie about it too. [laughter] >> that is as far as i wanted to go with that. as for the other larger issue of honor, integrity, when we got married he was 49. i have been doing politics since i was in college and i know where i am, a conservative, jekyll and hyde. we are jekyll and hyde. i am not mary matalin the beloved and dearest wife you will ever have, mother of your children, then there is mary

matalin, attila the hun. there has never been an issue, we have never, ever accidentally or on purpose, we call it the burden of knowledge. even if it is something i don't care about, i am not going to tell you because you don't need the burden of knowledge. we also have physical constraints. i have my fox news fair and balanced through that he has his espn room, his own closet, his own bathroom, his own space. there is never any fear of accidentally sharing any confidences but in the larger sense strategies aren't secret. messages aren't secret. the campaign that is keeping their message secret is going to lose. >> by all accounts he is doing a heck of a job at bayless.

athletically doing great and doing a great job, glad he is in waco and i concur. glad he is in waco. to the back to that in this room people remember that. i will be honest. of everything i have done in my life the thing i'm most proud of is i was the first person out there defending clinton. not because i really do like him but because i was offended at the overstepping that went on. this is absolutely a true story. i am fortunate enough to give a lot of speeches. i was in boca raton giving a speech to a group and it was a high income, republican raspberry vinaigrette kind of crowd. this was in early january of 99.

got a standard question. mr. carville, i got a question. you and your wife and two precious young children on meet the press during the holidays. yes pledge how old are a? i said one is 3 and one is 1. she said this is my question. they are not going to be little girls forever. they are going to grow up. they are going to find out all of the sorry things bill clinton did and the things he did in the oval office, discussed in. not just that, they will find out how their daddy went out and defended him and call people names and they are going to go to you one day and ask why did you do that? and i want to know what you are going to tell them? i said you damn bitch.

you have a right to ask the question. i said girls, one time in your daddy's life we had a good friend that the bad thing and he thought about it and said i am going to forgive the bad thing and stick with my good friend. sometimes in your life you will be in a situation where you will have a good friend does of bad thing. i want you to pause, think about it and think of sticking with your good friend but let me tell you the main thing. you are good girls and daddy knows that. daddy knows sometimes in life even good girls do bad things. if that ever happens to you the lesson i want you to take from this is a failure daddy first, he will be the first to forgive you. it is over. history rendered its judgment. the public rendered its judgment. for those of us who were there

for it, you know, we will remember it forever. and i am glad it is over and i am glad he is doing well. he is probably happier that he is there. >> can i add he is the best daddy in the world but when they do bad things, the first thing they say is don't tell daddy. >> name one thing you would change about chris christie's recent press conference. >> we don't talk about policy. you don't want to do that at night. we can talk about strategy.

we agree on strategy. if i could have changed one thing i would have changed the duration and i would not have talked about my pajamas and after that, i think what i said, kathleen parker coming out, we were on the train coming back, my us to and intelligent -- with james had, james was like this for hours and all kinds of strategies and got to go on and talk about it so take it away. >> a couple of things. first, the thing about a scandal, this was true in the monica lewinsky thing. everyone understood it. it didn't -- everybody understands this completely. this is not a fixed interest

rate kind of thing. this is a direct deal. i was asked, what i would have done is not go to the mayor. i would have gone to the people of fort lee and said directly to them, and whatever we know now, we are going to no more. it is the nature of everything. it is hard to get all of the information out, what he needs right now best thing to do would be get a federal investigation, let's wait till that comes out and just shut down. and people -- it has become a standard thing. no reason you can't talk to investigation but we can't say anything because -- and finding criminality is one thing to find

wrong doing so hopefully it the u.s. attorney comes back and says we are not charging him with a criminal act called fine now. that is where he is but right now the more you say the more trouble -- >> his is the best idea he skipped over, he said chris christie should have gotten dressed in a tollbooth uniform and gone to a toll booth and let people get in and out of fort lee. that was a good idea. >> i would have worked the toll booth and had bridget kelly scrubbing commodes at the restaurants on the turnpike. people understand this. when you think about it, you go dam, man, they really shut that bridge down. >> can you tell he has adhd?

many doctors in the room? a little hyper. >> what advice do you give young people who are thinking of getting into politics? >> honestly, there is a chapter in the book, i wrote everything and i was going to cut, cut, cut and the publisher left it in. you and never going to be more idealistic than you are at this age. you can't help it. the beauty of age is wisdom but the terror is realism. don't be afraid to fail. don't be afraid to do anything including dry cleaning, coffee, be fair, learn, take a mentor,

don't be afraid to ask, people our age who have done it want to teach you and think outside the box. we don't know about twitter. my best friend donna brazil's says we need to get a twitter account, if you are over 30 and like a glass of wine after 10:00 you don't need a twitter account. we need people like you and james teaches at tulane, we work with young people, we are so -- that is why we are so optimistic. you are a much better generations and we deserve. don't judge the current politics. bring your idealism to it. >> a lot of times -- i politely

-- i want to do what you do. what advice do you have for me? you are you. you follow your passion and you make the way you want to. you can't look to me who is 69 years old, who came up in an entirely different time. one of the great women of washington was sally smith who had two kids that were learning disabled and decided -- it looks like a college now. like a lot of those children i have learning disabilities and sally was very clever. she would bring people in and have a big banquet and it was myself and clarence page and kelly mcgill less, the actress, and whatever. and bring you in and raise a lot of money and it was a really cool thing and you were glad to do it and get with these kids

and we were sitting up there and asked how many of you want to grow up and be like us? no. no. you want to be like you. there is nothing wrong with you. don't aspire to be another person. be yourself. because if you try to be somebody else you are going to fail. every time i have not succeeded and made a fool of myself i tried to be somebody other than me. i tell my young people in my class it is not important what i think. is only important what you think. my job is to be a provocative. my job is to give you -- one of the things i decided to cover this spring and i don't know anything about it and don't know what i think about it is this nsa data gathering. i don't know. dangerous people in the world

but it seems like a lot of information for somebody to have. i find out i teach better if i'd do that. if you just bring some people in and explore and hopefully at the end of the thing i have a better opinion on what i think about it. what i do to my kids is i assign -- you fought the keystone pipeline, you are against it. so i give five different things to be on both sides of so the exam, they will have to defend or advocate ten potential positions, they don't know which ones they have to do. the idea is to get them to be thinking both sides of the thing. that is my advice. don't try -- you won't be successful being me and i won't be successful being you. you got to be yourself and find out what your passion is and what your talent level is and

what your weaknesses are and go from there. >> don't be anything like -- they both said no worries. >> i you raising your kids to be republicans or democrats? do you have kids? is there a connection between what i say and what they do? if i could just get them to close the door. who would want kids -- if you don't want that? >> this is going to have to be the last question over here. sorry about that. we don't have time for more. >> thank you. the documentary the war room, turn campaign operatives into folk heroes, made a really full career, and the lot more people

would like to be the hired gun who steps into the campaign and turns everything around. what do you think of the legacy of that? >> if you really want to know, those things, we love penny blocker and them and that was a great film but you really want to know what it is light, boys on the bus, what it takes and richard ben cramer. it is not glamorous. ..