duties and patients who lost their legs below the knees but as the war went on the injury steadily got worse and worse. we went from seeing single lady and duties to mostly patients would double and triple and duties meaning they had lost two legs and an arm. we watched the amputations move up the body. he went from being below the knees and the elbow to above the knees at the skys, above the elbow. we saw a patients who started to lose their legs at the groin and we even began to see patients with partial public amputations. by the time walter reed closed in 2011 almost all of our new patients for double or triple and duties and we had rehabilitated three men who had lost all four of their limbs. i had a hobby after work that

forced me to look for the sunnyside of life and all of my co-workers who made it through those years at walter reed had some sort of outlet whether it was baking cakes or training for 100 mile running races or even keeping up with the highly complicated world of celebrity news. and all of us shared a dark sense of humor. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. here is a look at some of the upcoming book fairs and festivals happening around the country. october 10th through twelfth the southern festival of books in downtown nashville hosts 200 authors and watch for booktv's coverage coming weeks. the following week from october 16th through nineteenth the wisconsin book festival in madison, wisconsin. the last weekend in october but the boston book festival and the texas book festival takes place

and booktv will be live from austin all weekend. let us know about book fairs and festivals in your area and add them to our list, and we look at them at c-span.org. >> next, david horowitz argues liberals and the united states have mastered the art of political warfare and he says it is about time conservatives learned it too. this is about an hour and 10 minutes. >> thank you, everybody. a democratic strategist once wisely said everybody has had game plan until you punch them in the mouth. the left has obviously taken that strategy to heart and perfected while the right has taken so many shots to the now we are less punch drunk and on the ropes but maybe not for much

longer. david horowitz's new book "take no prisoners: the battle plan for defeating the left" is the manual for conservative victory. emanual for punching the left in the mouth which i think is an appropriate metaphor for an organization, the freedoms and to which david himself has described as not a think tank but a battle tank. this is the right book at the right time from the right man. eyewall not go on long about david because no one is unaware of the epic contributions david horowitz made for our side. he is a lightning rod for their hatred and politics of personal destruction so the cost to him has been extraordinarily high but his contributions have been and continue to be invaluable among those of us who believe in the unfashionable values of freedom and american exceptionalism. in addition to activism through the freedom center answer heading work to get college

campuses fair and balanced david has been a prolific important writer that i don't have time to list all his books but i will name a few standouts which you must read. radical son, destructive generation, left illusion, the party of defeat, the art of political war, and holy alliance, the black book of the american left, now "take no prisoners: the battle plan for defeating the left" including the work that mike mentioned he is working on now. such a slacker. please try to -- could you get aid little busier because we need you. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome mat has been very good to me personally, a man his game plan will punch the left in the mouth, 1-man battle in defense of freedom, david horowitz. [applause]

>> thank you, marc. we have two celebrity friends, steven bauer, who is a great actor. you may remember him from scott face but any of you who are not watching ray donovan should start catching up where he plays donovan at security guy. the man you might think is the funniest man in hollywood, the brains behind the naked gun series, the airplane series, scary movies, david zucker. c-span is here. i would like to begin with a

tribute to the republican who has run this channel for 35 years and made it the fairest and most balanced cable network. a special reason to appreciate this network and brian's the achievement. for 30 years i have been blacklisted by the mainstream media for my political views. as far as they are concerned my books don't exist. the black list begins with the new york times which sets the standard for all the other reviews. 30 years ago the times reviewed books peter and i wrote on the front page of the sunday book review calling them irresistible epics but that is when peter and i were leftists. in 1985 we wrote an article for the washington post called lefties for reagan and at times retaliated by relegating

estimates back pages. idea and more prominent conservative voice, the times made me a non person and other papers followed suit. the last time the new york review of books reviewed a book of mine was in 1985, just before peter and i had the bad judgment to reveal we had voted for reagan for fbn tolerance and pluralism. which the times and so-called liberals introduced and for giving me this opportunity to tell people about my book. today is the thirteenth anniversary of the most devastating attack on the american homeland since the british burned the white house in 1812. the 9/11 atrocity was more than an attack. it was a declaration of war

against america, against israel, against the west generally and against every modern value associated with tolerance and freedom. president bush rose to the occasion as a worthy commander-in-chief unlike the present occupant of the white house. most importantly recognized the fact that this was a war declared on us. a war whose leader had said that it was the duty of every muslim to kill every american, every jew, every christian in every other infidel he could lay his hands on. bush responded to this barbarian threat by declaring a war on terror, a war on the terrorists who attacked us. not just al qaeda but as he put it on every terrorist force within global reach. unfortunately the war on terror that bush declared, the democrats have opposed for a decade or more.

the precise moment they openly defected from the war on terror was july of 2003 when the democratic leadership turned against the war in iraq which they had authorized only months before. since that time democrats have been so determined that the united states should not fight a war on terror that when a democrat, barack obama, became president, he eliminated the term war on terror from the u.s. government vocabulary and replaced it with, quote, and overseas contingency operations which describes exactly nothing. obama did worse, much worse. he set out to the great america's military forces and the peace america's islamist enemies bowling and scraping before islamists who were sworn to kill americans when they could. obama supported and financed the muslim brotherhood which is the

fountain head of islamic terror. to this evil organizations and in control of egypt's government he gave no one.4 billion american dollars and 16 fighter-bombers which would have been used against israel had not the brotherhood been overthrown shortly afterwards and outlawed. [applause] >> for over a decade democrats have insisted that the war conducted by islamic terrorists against americans be treated as individual criminal acts. to be prosecuted in civilian courts of law where the terrorists will be protected by hard won rights of americans. these would be used to the tie at our hands to squander billions of taxpayer dollars pretending to be innocent. this is a war between barbarism and civilization and democrats have done everything they could

to sabotage our side of the war. when i hear republicans say something like this i will begin to believe republicans might win the 2016 elections. since 1945, republicans have never won the popular vote in a national election. where national security was not the primary issue of the campaign. in 2008, and 2012, national security was absent from the republican campaign plan. they were afraid to mention obama's us all on the nation's security because the democrats would attack them as warmongers. in the third debate on foreign policy mitt romney actually had the leader of america's global retreat and pretended to endorse his policies. how did this happen?

it happened because republicans gave up the national security narrative when they failed to defend america's intervention in iraq and worse, they ought to hold democrats responsible for betraying the war which was vital to the war on terror. bush was right to go into iraq in march of 2003. [applause] >> he was right to remove saddam hussein, one of the monsters of the 20th century was supporting terrorism and determined to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. democratic leadership including bill clinton, john kerry and the global warming hysteric al gore all supported the removal of saddam by force as did the majority of democrats in the senate. unlike obama's interventions in libya and elsewhere bush's war to remove saddam was authorized

not only by congress but by a u.n. security council ultimatum. u.s. forces entered iraq. just three months later the democratic party was the nation's media in their pocket, turned savagely against bush. they called him a liar and a traitor and condemned the mission in iraq as quote nick illegal, immoral and unnecessary. that is al gore. these at tax went on for the next five years until a democrat entered the white house promising to throw in the towel and withdraw from the field of battle. what happened to change the democrats from supporting the war in iraq to its bitter enemies? no republican or conservative seems to remember it this, and and needed it cripples the effort to expose the dangerous policies the democrats have pursued.

i will tell you. absolutely nothing took place in iraq or in america's conduct of the war to cause the democrats be trail. absolutely nothing. what happened to change the democrats from supporters of america's war against the terrorists is this editors of that war, in the spring of 2003 as american troops entered iraq a democratic presidential primary was in progress and anti-war radical from the 60s named howard dean was about to run away with the nomination leaving all the other candidates including john kerry far behind. it was this fact that caused john kerry, to repudiate support for the war, and to be trade the

young men to send into harm's way. no republican can describe what he did. in july 2003 the democratic party fell into line with john kerry's portrayal. accused george bush of lying to to snooker the country into war. it was conducted in texas to benefit bush's oil cronies and dick cheney's former halliburton. the war was immoral, illegal and the necessary, he said bush lied and people died. this began a sabotage of america's effort to destroy the islamic terrorists in iraq and the middle east that lasted for the next five years. what was the response -- republican response to this treason? silence. republicans were too scared or

too polite to fight back. after the damage was done karl rove admitted that this was his greatest mistake, but the damage was done. the centerpiece of the democrats's attack was that he lied about intelligence concerning the status of dom's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. he lied about the intelligence to get their support for the unnecessary work. bush could not have wide. democrats like john kerry sat on the intelligence committees and had access to every piece of intelligence that bush did. it was the democrats who were lying. they were lying because they couldn't admit that they had turned their backs on a war they supported. so they have betrayed their country to win a primary eve election and attempt to win a

national election. the democrat said the war was unnecessary because there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq but the war was about saddam's determination to acquire these weapons and his violation of 17 u. n. security council resolutions designed to revenge him from doing that and of course there were weapons of mass destruction but the democrats put the whole country in denials so even when the evidence smacks them in the face they still can't see it. a month or so ago the big news story was isis had stumbled onto a chemical weapons storage plant in iraq. the plant had been built by saddam hussein. the news anchors said the chemical weapons were dangerous in isis's hands and they left it at that but they failed to say that the existence of this storage facility showed that there were weapons of mass

destruction and the democrats had lied in order to sabotage america's war against said on and the terrorists in iraq. megyn kelly managed in the same program to feature the chemical weapons story and in a later segment to accuse dick cheney of being wrong about iraq because there were no weapons of mass destruction. dick cheney was right, there were. this call losel misreading of the war in iraq has had ominous consequences. if you want to understand why terrorists rule iraq today in the middle east, the democrats defection from the war in iraq and their ten year campaign to force america's retreat from the war on terror. consider the consequences of the democrats seditious campaign. because they divided the country

and said half of it against the war america couldn't follow said john's generals and chemical weapons into syria. where do you think bashar al-assad got those chemical weapons anyway? [applause] >> because syriac became a cauldron of terrorism and iran escaped unpunished for the i e ds he place in iraq that killed and maimed the majority of american casualties. perhaps we could have won the war on terror then when it was manageable, and what the republicans sidon's did in the face of the democrats's betrayal is to allow the democrats to turn that betrayal into a patriotic act and to -- republican support for a necessary work into unpatriotic warmongering. this is why republicans were

unwilling to stand up for their country and why they lost the election. they were afraid of being portrayed as reckless. to this day no republican has the spine to call for bids on the ground in iraq which is obviously necessary if isis is to be defeated. that is a direct consequence of the false picture of why the war in iraq went bad. this is the price you pay if you lose the political battle or throw in the towel before you begin. republicans will not win the presidential election in 2016 unless they hold democrats accountable for their years of the grading america's military and beaded america's retreat. unprincipled and unscrupulous as they are, the democrats will try to position themselves at the head of the war against isis. republicans should not let them

get away with this. if it were not for the democrats's determination to turn their backs on the war we would still have a massive military base in iraq with 20,000 troops in country. republicans should make this political mantra and throw it in the democrats face is every chance they get. [applause] >> it was mike tyson who said everybody has a game plan until you punch them in the mouth. democrats have a massive punch in a mao for republicans. every election, every time they open their mouths democrats are accusing republicans as racists, sexist, homophobic, enemies of the poor, selfish and uncaring.

that is a moral indictment and it throws those accused of this off their game plan. we want of defending yourself against charges he recants defend yourself against, certainly not in the political arena where you have nine seconds to respond. the republican punch in the mouth for the democrats, there is none. republicans are busy telling positive stories. that is what they like to tell. they are good at it. i am not against positive stories. fulmer publican convention was about people who came to america and succeeded, people who were born in america for and succeeded and so forth and every

republican consultant says we need positive stories. if somebody is spending $200 million to car you as a corporate predator, as someone who killed a woman because -- who had cancer and who mistreats his dog, voters are not exactly going to listen to your positive stories or care about them. you can't have -- if somebody thinks you are a racist, they are not going to listen to your policy proposals in the same way as if they don't and that should be very obvious. what should republicans do? this is the kind of gravity of the book i have written, "take no prisoners: the battle plan

for defeating the left". i do this with the foreign policy issue which is paramount for republicans in the next election which is why i began with it aside from the fact that it is the anniversary of 9/11. what should be the republican punch in the mouth? you have to fight fire with fire. you can't go defending yourself and as marlon brando said in on the waterfront, do it to him before he does it to you. that is very basic. politics is a street fight and there is a character problem with republicans, they are well brought up, they are averse to street fights. they want to play by the markets of queens very rules. they want politics to be a debate about policy. is not a debate about policy. it is a debate about whether you abuse your dog or not. that is the reality. it has been that way ever since

the beginning of the republic. i grew up in the left so i grew up as a fighter. beyond me why republicans don't fight back. i don't understand it but here is the punch in the mouth republicans should use. in the first place the democratic party is the party of racism. in the 60s -- a [applause] -- in the 1960s the civil rights act outlawed, outlawed racial categories in laws and in regulations governing institutions. the democrats spent 50 years putting racial categories back in. racial categories defined with a

you can get into one school or not, whether you can get a job, and in fact almost every aspect of our cultural life is under the gun from the democrats's racist categorizing of everything. we just witnessed in ferguson, missouri, a month-long lynch mob. that is what it was. a lynch mob. convict the officer because he was white and the dead person is black before the trial, try him, haines him or else. note justice, no peace. that is a threat. that is a kind of threat, that is the threat of a lynch mob and of course it was led by the nation's leading lynch mob leader, al sharpton, who is the president's adviser on race relations.

the president is a racist. everybody knows that. eric holder, the other racist conducting a witch hunt with his left wing attorneys. where it is the republican whoever called a democrat a racist? democrats control every major city in america. chicago, st. louis, philadelphia, detroit, new york, los angeles, and they have for 50 to 100 years, monopoly control. everything that is wrong with the inner cities of america, that policy can affect democrats are responsible for. [applause] >> they are destroying and have destroyed the lives of millions,

millions of poor black and hispanic children do they trapped in public schools year in and year out for 30 years, they will fight to the death to prevent these kids from getting scholarships called vouchers so they can find schools that will teach them and at the same time, at the same time, democrats send their own kids including the president of the united states to fancy private schools. how racist is that? yet no republican will mention it. why are the republicans hauling their 2016 convention in deep foyt, the symbol of democratic oppression of poor black -- poor black people? detroit in 1961 was the richest

per-capita city in america, the crown jewel of industrial america. in 1961 a liberal democrat was elected mayor and began putting in place democrat policies. what are those policies? those policies are anti business. those policies are anti white, that is what they are as what they did was they drove out the business community from detroit into the suburbs and drove out the white middle class which was their tax base and so today detroit is bankrupt, it is the forest large city in america? two thirds of the population are gone, 2 million people, 800,000, 85% of them are african american, 45% of them are unemployed, 30% of them are on food stamps. they took a first world giant

and turned it into a third world country in one generation, 50 years. that is what the democrats do and there are no republicans around to stop them. .. >> they took a woman named paula deen who had built a multimillion dollar business on tv and through tv, and they took this woman, and they destroyed her business and her wealth, and

they made her into a poster child for racism. this was a woman who voted for barack obama, it's a woman who gave millions of dollars through charity to poor black children in the inner city. and her crime, her crime was that in a private conversation 25 years earlier she had use the n-word d which we, it used to be a free country. only black people can use the n-word. used the n-word in a private conversation with her husband after she had been mugged during a bank robbery by a black criminal. that was her crime. why do republicans call these people liberals? they're bigots, is what they are. they're not liberal about anything. police departments.

[applause] the only thing they're liberal about is sex, hard drugs and spending other people's money. [laughter] [applause] democrats don't care about minorities and the poor. if they did, they would have done something in the last 50 years to help these people. what have they done? this speaks to the incredible libels, that's how the democrats run their political campaigns, that republicans are anti-women. they're conducting a war on women. think of what the democrats with their diabolical, evil welfare program have done to single mothers for generations now in the inner cities. they give the mother a free apartment, free food, $1500 or so a month, and they tell

them -- so then that's a life of poverty forever, and you've taken away any incentive they have to go out and sort of make a life for themselves. and worse, they give them $200 for every child that they produce. so they're turning out children who are condemned to lives of poverty and crime and probably a lot of them will die young through gang violation. violence. that's what democrats have done. where's the republican who's saying this? why aren't they saying this every time they make a speech, every time they confront a debbie wasserman-schultz, they should be saying you are a racist. look at what your party is doing to poor black and hispanic children and mothers in this country. [applause] democrats, obviously, don't care

about minors and the poor -- minorities and the poor. they throw them crumbs, and they get their votes. and, of course, they lie i to them to get their votes. if republicans win, black churches are going to be burned and so forth and so on, the democratic campaigns. how do they convince minorities and the poor that they care? and let me just take a second here to talk about why care is the most important word in politics. everybody knows that policy issues -- except, i guess, paul ryan doesn't understand this -- policy issues are so complex, so complex that you can't make the argument over policy stick in political combat. what people vote for, they want somebody to represent them, somebody they feel they can trust to care about them.

cnn did an exit poll after the 2012 election, and the questions were the candidate shares your vision for the future, shares your policy preferences -- i can't remember the third -- oh, has leadership qualities, something like that, and cares about you. romney won the first three by 54%. he got the first three questions. but obama beat him 80-18, 80% to 18% on cares about you. asian-americans voted 70% for obama. asian-americans have all republican values. they have strong families, strong education,

entrepreneurship. but they voted for obama because they thought he cared about them. how do the democrats show, persuade people that they care about them when they don't? and obviously don't? well, one answer is that the republicans collude in silence about all the terrible things they've done to poor people. i mean, maybe you read these stories. during the obama administration, the only part of the population that increased its wealth was the top 10%. black unemployment is off the charts. okay, so how do they convince, how do they convince these people that they care? by attacking republicans as racist and selfish and uncaring, for crying out tears. [laughter] [applause] that's how they do it. if you don't attack in politics

and go straight for the jugular, you're probably going to lose. sometimes the democrats screw up so big, as this year, as in the last two years, that they give republicans an election. so i believe in november we're going to see a big republican victory. but i don't see that for 2016, because the democratic liars and slanderers will be out there in force with hundreds of millions of dollars behind their lies. and because they think they're saving the world and they think very highly of themselves if you haven't noticed, that's why they're so rude, and they're always interrupt, because they see their opponents as evil, and they see themselves as saints. republicans are talking about

outreach to minority communities. well and good. but if you are black and live in the inner city, when have you seen the republican party stand up for you? outreach isn't going to do any good as long as the republican party doesn't stand up for the underdog in this country. why isn't the republican party proposing a $500 billion voucher program in why aren't they voucherrizing all the schools, all the public schools? [applause] so poor brach and his -- poor black and his pappic, white children for that manner, can have a shot at the american dream the way the obama kids do. why doesn't the republican party do that? when the republican party does that, they will get support in the black community and, better

yet, they will get support from middle class america. this is the thing, this is how republicans do it. i mean, paul ryan is a nice man, and he's a very bright man, but he hasn't got a political brain cell. [laughter] and the republican congress doesn't apparently either. they pass a budget. this was in april. which has budget cuts. now, what is that for? the republicans in congress can't cut the budget, can they? they can't do that until they win the white house. so what are they doing? they're saying, what a good boy am i, that's basically it. now, whether these proposed budget cuts -- what do these proposed budget cuts do? i'm just going to pick one item from paul ryan's cuts, and that's the legal services corporation.

it's a $420 million government program. for all i know, it may -- well, they want to, he cut the whole thing. i don't know. does it do no good? you couldn't, you couldn't argue this out in a political debate. you don't have time. you've got on the presidential debates what do they have, three minutes? three minutes. what is the legal services corporation? it's a government program to provide lawyers for impoverished people who need them. so paul ryan has made enemies of poor people, he's made enemies of advocates for the poor, and much more important, he's made enemies of middle class americans who are charitable people who want to help the unfortunate. that's all he's done with his budget.

i mean, i'm all for outreach and saying, you know, look, we're not really so bad, we don't hate black people and so forth, but nothing is going to happen until the republican party stands up for the inner cities of america which are under the boot heels of the democratic party. one other thing that i, i mean, there's a lot of other things that i cover in my book -- [laughter] but one that i particularly wanted to mention is who these people are in the democratic party. i grew up in a communist community in the early years of the cold war. and i have watched that communist community, first of all, transmogrify itself into the new left which was a communist movement and then take

over the democratic party. the culture of the people that i grew up with who all thought of themselves as patriots while they supported the soviet union in the cold war, who all thought of themselves, they claimed to be jeffersonian democrats. so whether -- rhetoric, you don't watch the rhetoric, you watch what they do. they're progressive. vevevevevents ever refer to themselves as communists, although they were card-carrying, or their friends. they were all progressives, and they actually belonged to the progressive party at time. what is a progressive? progressives and conservatives are fundamentally different people. conservatives look at the past, and they say this is how human beings behave. and if we're going to create policies, we have to take in account real people and how they

behave. progressives look to an imaginary future. these days it's called social justice. communism, socialism, it's all the same thing. it's a world where we all get along. it's a world without war. it's a world without borders which is why they're destroying our borders as we speak. it's a world where everybody is equal. this is a fantasy world. it can't exist. if you -- you understand the first thing about human beings, it's been tried, and what it leads to is a totalitarian state because you have to force people to behave in the way you think they should behave instead of dealing with the way they do behave and trying to make the best of it which is what the market does. obamacare, i mean, this, this is a communist program.

i mean, their goal is a single-payer system where the government controls everything. but if you look at it, first of all, let's compare obamacare -- i remember nancy pelosi standing in the well of the house beaming when they passed obamacare and said, first, we passed -- i don't remember which came first, medicare or probably social security -- and then medicare and now obamacare. and i'm thinking when she said social security, bankrupt, medicare, bankrupt, now we're going to triple down with another -- [laughter] worse, when you have these comprehensive programs even though they don't work, social security if you look it up and medicare were passed by vast majorities in both parties. obamacare was rammed through by

one party without a single republican vote. it has divided -- we have never been this divided since the civil war, and that's a direct result of this president and the -- and i don't want to, it's not obama. much as i despise him, it's not obama. it's the democratic party. this is a radical party. to do that is radical. it's not within the american tradition of compromise. [applause] and they -- this is the archetypal progressive program. they sold it by lying. when obama ran, if you'll remember, he said, you know, government, a government system is bad and a private system's bad, it's got to be in the middle. no, it doesn't. this is not in the middle. then he said -- how did they sell it?

it was a charitable act to cover the uninsured. no, it doesn't, it doesn't cover the uninsured. it was to lower the health care costs. no, it doesn't, it increases health care cost. you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. lie, lie, lie, lie. why do they lie? because the agenda of obamacare was control of the population. everybody will be in a health care program that government controls. your life and death, they already have a movement to get people the die early, not to do expensive medical procedures that would extend their lives. the government will control your life expectancy, the government will have access to all your information, health and financial. this is a war on individual

freedom, and we have lost a major part of our individual freedom. no longer can you choose your health care plan. the government will give you, now they give you four options, someday they may give you one. and options are at my age i've got to have maternity coverage. [laughter] the government doesn't -- this is about control, it's a war on individual freedom. republicans don't, i haven't heard it attacked that way by a republican, unfortunately: the goal of progressives is to control individual lives. that's why, you know, lenin didn't start out saying, you know, let's kill 40 million people. land and peace, that's what it was about. but their plans, because they

were socialists -- and the democratic party is now a socialist party -- their plans involved remaking human beings, remaking human beings. and the only way you can accomplish that is by a totalitarian state. and everything the democrats do is an attack on individual freedom and laying the groundwork for a totalitarian state though they would deny it if you confronted them. i am waiting for republicans to wake up. i have written this book. i put it in the hands of every member of congress. the only -- well -- [applause] the only, the only member of congress who called me was senator ron johnson of wisconsin. said he wanted to put it in practice. i've had people on the rnc tell me they want to put it in practice. i'll believe it when i see it.

as i said, republicans, the republican party is, first of all, a party of small business. if you run a business, you are conflict-averse. you want customers, you don't want fights. if you're a missionary and you believe that the world is in control of evil corporations and evil republicans, you're always looking for a fight. that's the problem, that's the real problem we face. and i hope we can overcome it. thank you. [applause] thank you.

i never know if i'm talking too long, but i see that we have time for questions. >> let me -- [inaudible] the book is absolutely brilliant, and you need to buy this for everybody that you know. first of all, do you know that the -- [inaudible] committee is sending half a million dollars in north carolina and louisiana personally going after mary landrieu and the republican senators there and attacking them about their records on abortion and on education and on the energy policies that are driving our electric bills on black television and black radio stations and -- >> well, mary landrieu's a democrat. >> excuse me? >> i know, they're attacking her personally. >> that's good. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> i'm all for it. >> excuse me? >> i said, that's good, i'm all for it. >> so this is an optimistic report about the -- [laughter]

[applause] >> i have to see him in action more politically. i think ben carson is a wonderful, wonderful human being. we've had him on our platforms. but politics is a very, very dirty business, and, you know, i want to see ray donovan. [laughter] tom can handle that. >> hi, david. you touched on this. there's always been a disconnect in my mind between people who consider themselves visionary in the vanguard of history and on the right side of history, but they ignore all historical lessons starting with the french revolution and the reign of terror -- >> yeah. >> how do they -- >> everything the democrats are proposing has been tried and shown to be ruinous. ruinous. >> right. >> who couldn't predict that

obamacare was going to have huge problems? >> but you -- >> it's really, it's too bad that we had a supreme court justice who made a terrible, terrible decision. this is an unconstitutional -- this is unconstitutional. the reason that obama violates the constitution weekly is that radicals hate the constitution because it prevents them from doing these schemes like obamacare. >> in your friends and your family, when they saw the failures of the socialist regimes and the crumbling of the communist regime in russia, did they stop and think that they were on the wrong side of history? >> no, they didn't stop. what they thought was, oh, god, now we don't have to defend the soviet union, we're going to try it again. [laughter] i kid you not. they wrote, that's what -- they didn't write it in those terms, but that's what they wrote, of course. >> well, that -- >> socialism is dead. long live socialism. [laughter] >> so it's really a historical disconnect in their mind.

>> they're religious fanatics, that's what progressives are, religious fanatics. there are books about -- [applause] about people who are in religions that predict the doomsday and the doomsday comes and goes and, you know, how they reconstitute their delusions. you have to understand that the progressive creed functions the same way a religion did, does. it's a consolation. it makes you really important. you're recreating the world. it takes your mind off the fact that you may be vanishing and so forth. it is a, it's a religious movement and, therefore, facts don't matter. a religious movement in this life. i mean, i don't want to say that, you know, what i would call an authentic religion is really about the next life, not about this one. >> well, i'm here to make a

statement about you, david. i want -- [laughter] to tell you -- >> you're going to embarrass me. >> -- that you are my north star, my guiding light, my touchstone. you are my hero. i -- you have given me the courage. i have only had courage because you had courage. only because of your courage have i had the courage to begin to write. you have mentored me, you have championed me, you have supported me, and i have to give you my deepest, deepest gratitude because i'm now very frightened. i've moved out into the public voice, and i'mer the -- i'm terrified. i need your words of advice on how you have survived all these years punching them in the nose, because i'm going out there to do it. i also want to say they do these things with language where now they've made voucher a dirty word. >> of course. >> that's just one thing i want to bring up -- >> [inaudible] >> but they've made voucher a dirty word now. but also i really need to hear

what you would say to me as i move out into this nose-punching thing -- [laughter] how to survive these vicious, vicious people. >> right. first, let me thank you for the kind words. [applause] i'm going to go home after this and get a dose of reality. for the fight, first of all, it's nothing personal. when you get attacked, i mean, the first thing, you know, when i used to be attacked, it was very hurtful. and it's hurtful if you don't have a big public presence because they defame you, and there's really no way to strike back. but it's nothing personal. and this is, i don't know, my optimism, i was born with it. that's what i think.

so my head tells me we're in for very terrible times, but my heart says people are waking up, and we're going to fight and win. [applause] >> i don't make all the luncheons, but i get to the best ones, and may god bless you and give can you long life. >> thank you, mark. [applause] >> my point is a few years, in the last couple of years you had donald rumsfeld as a speak or at this luncheon. >> yes. >> and after lunch i was able to ask him a question which he gave an answer which had some nonpublic information which addresses iraq. and i said to him before we invented -- invaded iraq, there was a satellite picture on tv of a very large convoy of russian trucks going from iraq into syria. my first thought was there go the weapons of mass destruction.

and his answer was this: we thought so too, but we couldn't prove it. >> well, he's not -- look, the iraq war was fought with too few troops. why is that? because ever since the vietnam war, the democrats had waged a war against america playing a role in the world. between 1973 when we pulled out of vietnam and 2003 when we, our troops entered iraq, the united states had been able to put troops on the battlefield for exactly four days in a war which was the gulf, first gulf war. and that's it. so the way that rums peld and -- rumsfeld and bush designed the war, rumsfeld really, was to avoid democrat attacks for being

whatever, imperialist. they didn't go into syria because of, for the same reason. by that time the democratic party was in full throat, accusing -- you know, when i, i wrote a book about, i actually have written three books about iraq. the third one will be out in october. it's part of the black book series. but the second book, god, i forgot what my train of thought was there. we were doing rumsfeld and the way -- oh, why they -- yeah. >> [inaudible] >> they didn't go into syria because the democrats, well, you know, they were exposing national security programs, the left, destroying national security programs that protected americans from terrorist attacks. and they got -- and the bush

administration was paralyzed. they should have prosecuted "the new york times" and the washington post for publishing them, and they should have gone after, you know, they should have been saying this is treasonous, what you're doing is treasonous. we're at war. oh. when i wrote the second book on iraq -- now i remember -- i actually took a psychological warfare manual out of, probably off the internet. and what did it say? it says when you're conducting a psychological warfare campaign, the first thing you do is attack the moral character of the commander in chief. and that's what "the new york times" -- "the new york times" ran this stupid, minor incident at abu ghraib 60 days on the, it was a front page story. the holocaust, they started stories about the holocaust six times in six years.

six front page stories. but if you read them, sometimes they mention the jews in the 14th paragraph. yet abu ghraib was 60 days on the front pages. and what did that do? it attacked the moral character of american leadership and paralyzed them. i mean, this is -- i am horrified because there's such silence around this. nobody is using these terms that you've heard today from me about this. yet i don't see that there's any other term that could be accurately applied. >> another n-word is the word naziism, and i'm convinced that the democratic party is totally soft and totally blind to current naziism whether it's hamas or hezbollah -- >> islamic, yeah. >> isis, all of them. and i'm wondering from a tactical point of view whether

we can't label the democratic opponent as soft on naziism -- >> well, nobody would you said it. [applause] ..

>> he was a political operative for the muslim brotherhood and there is no question about that. >> you touched on a comment saying that the democratic party is almost a religious movement? >> aggressive. aggressive. the democratic party has some principle and and they did not attack america's war in iraq. but progressivism and if you are guided by an imaginary future where you think people ought to live, and you want the government to enforce that future, then you are no different from the communist and you are totalitarian.

>> understood. my concern was having just sent off a daughter raised with tremendous values to college, where she is now, for the first time registered to vote, as an independent, apologizing to us because she has become a product of what her schooling has unfortunately, public school, because we took advantage of the system to put her into a very excellent education. siera: >> a state school? >> no, she's going to a private college. >> mikan owns a. [laughter] >> my condolences. >> the vast majority of elite american schools are run by communists. >> understood, but it is a very progressive school.

i'm taking away from personal experience for what i am concerned about for my daughter and her life. she's a good saver, progressive socialist. my concern is that the democrats have created a machine that the republicans cannot even approach in seducing young people. >> it is the left that dominates the entire educational system and that is why they dominate the media and the court and you could go on and on. it is a grim situation. >> so why haven't the republicans woken up to say this is what we need to take care of? >> i have conducted a seven-year campaign and there should always be two sides elise and they should be presented and book

signing on both sides. okay? i got very little support from the republicans. the republican party did not pick up this campaign, although they must be governors in 30 or 33 states. but if you go up on the internet, you can find this described and so forth. and i will tell you that these people, the american association of university professors want to indoctrinate students and they fought me so they could indoctrinate students. and that was their goal but the

thing about socialism as it doesn't work. and in reality we when. [applause] >> as he talked about this wisdom towards us last night. [laughter] president obama told us that isis was not islamic. >> you mean the islamic state. that they are not islamic. >> at the time of the spanish inquisition, do you consider that this leaders intellectual evidence is further evidence that he has been doctored and the air of nader to in such that

isis will never be defeated? >> i think that by doing nothing while half a million christians were expelled from their homes or slaughtered -- he's no christian. he's no christian. [applause] >> i believe that he identifies with the islamic world and not with america. [applause] >> it is interesting that you mention that. in a poll that was taken a couple of years ago, 17% of the american public thought that he was muslim. will 36% believe he was christian, but no one believed he was jewish. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you so much for all that you do and i definitely still appreciate that you have a

voice and a strong voice. i'm not going to say anything profound here, but i am concerned that most everyone here, myself included, has friends and family and good people, people who come from democratic grandparents and parents and they feel very proud of themselves, they are liberals and progressives, they have no idea that they are part of a very dangerous totalitarian movement while they go to the booth and vote and they take in no information and they will wake up one day and we know that we are going to lose all of our freedoms one after the other but our children and grandchildren are going to have to face what we have created.

when i say we, i mean selectively. so i would like you to comment on that. what do we do about that wave of people -- >> that is what this book is about. in the book i say that the republicans say it should be reiterated with individual freedom and this is the way obamacare should've been fought. and so it's all well and good to talk about the cost and it is important and the fact that they lie about it. but the bottom line is that they are taking away your freedom. you no longer have the freedom to decide what kind of health care you should have. these are questions of life and death and it's not complete yet, but that is the goal, to take it away from you. why are republicans saying this?

the same thing with the lynch mob. the lynch mob was out there and it's led by the same lynchers. they were out there with those lacrosse players, why are we using those languages? and your little friends might have a second thought. i mean, how is this different from the traditional lynch mob, except they are not string them up by the tree. but in the case of zimmerman and some other people, they published their address and i'll easily someone is believed that they will come and do him harm. >> mr. borowitz, thank you for being who you are. i think of this table and the

democrats, how the democrats have corrupted the legal system and they get up in the morning to see who they will bring in and i think that this is something that i'm talking about in general. and i want to hear your opinion. >> what does obama do? he raises money for campaigns. the democrats are political from the tips of their toes in the tops of their heads and the shorthand is to study what they

do without becoming as despicable as they are. and so in a way, we thank you all for coming. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> you are watching booktv on c-span2. with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend, but tv is television for serious readers. >> here are some programs to watch out for on booktv this weekend. on sunday we will be live with joan who will take your

questions from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern. on "after words", heather cox richardson looks at the beginning of the republican party. interviewing several of the city's tourist site. topics include the war of 1812, not the occupied paris, and henry kissinger on international affairs. forty-eight hour television schedule, visit us at the tv thoughtbooktv.com. >> here is a look at books that are being published this week. leon panetta reflects on his life in public office in worthy fight. and joan miscue good looks at the life of sotomac and then the use of medicine and

end-of-life care. and don't wait for the next war, wesley clark weighs in on the united states war on international affairs. and christopher hill accounts his career in outpost. pulitzer prize winner james macpherson recounts the life of the president of the confederacy, jefferson davis. and cornel west examines the 19th and 20th century leaders and edward wilson looks at what the meaning of human existence brings. look at these authors on booktv.org. >> valerie matsumoto sat down to talk about her book "city girls:

the nisei social world in los angeles, 1920-1950", the experiences of of second-generation japanese-american women. in the years surrounding world war ii. this 20 minute interview as part of booktv's college degrees. >> valerie matsumoto, when did japanese immigration to the united states begin and really take off? >> the first to come were students who came in 1890s and they were talking and said to have tried to strengthen imperial role. so the first went to hawaii and then by the 19 hundreds more were coming to the continental united states. two how big was that wave imax. >> we