will have to say something in this conference. what am i going to say? >> in the conference it is just you nine. >> yes, just the justices in the morning. we discussed the case. we each have a book for each case. it has the name of the other justices and places to write. the first thing that happens is the chief justice says, the issue in this case is this and that. my view is. it is sustained, probably five minutes. my view is this and that. i would vote to affirm or reverse. i have the essence of what he is thinking. then it goes to justice scalia, and that justice kennedy, justice thomas, justice ginsburg, me, justice alito, justice sotomayor, and justice kagan. each of us will take note of what the others say. nobody speaks twice until

everyone has spoken once. that is a very good rule in any small group. everybody feels they have gotten a fair chance. then there will be back-and-forth discussions. probably a little bit more with chief justice roberts then with rehnquist. the point of the discussion, and the point of what i have said is not to say that i have a better argument. there are hundreds of arguments. it is what i think. the reason why i am waiting in this direction is -- and it better be truthful. that is why they are in private. i do not have to worry about what i am saying, i can try things on. there is some discussion back and forth. on the basis of that, people would cast a tentative vote, but it is less tentative than it would have been the day before. and it is less tentative than it would have been before the oral arguments.

on the basis of that, the chief justice will assign someone to be the rapporteur. he is much more constrained in that. everybody gets one case before they get two. by the way, half of our cases are unanimous. where they are 5-4, i learned how to get it assigned to me. i was the longest-serving junior justice in history almost. i could get it assigned to me. here is how. it breaks down 4-4. how do i get it to me, which i certainly did not want. i said, i am not sure. they have to assign it to me. that will determine the outcome. i better be more certain than that.

nonetheless, he has to try to get the court, do it by the numbers, and that he has some discretion. then we sit down, we write, i get my law clerk to write a long draft or memo, and then i will go read it. i will sit down and then write my draft. i often say, i know you think yours was better. then she will go in give me another draft, and i will probably do another draft. i was a law professor. i am picky. then we go back and forth and get a draft and circulate it. i hope i pick up before you are more votes. if i do that, it is the opinion of the court. i am always willing to change, even when i have the majority. when i have the majority signed up, i am a little less willing.

nonetheless, somebody may write a dissent or concurrence. eventually everyone either joined or writes his own. and the opinion comes out. it is mechanical. that plays a role. >> my name is alexis from juniata college. my question is in regards to your view on education. last week, we discussed how approximately only two percent of the national budget is spent on education. how do you feel about the amount of money that goes to public education and what you feel we could do to improve the public education system if we were allotted more money to do so? >> i declare my bias. this is my father's watch. it says irving breyer, legal advisor, san francisco unified

school district, 1933-1973. i grew up with the public schools. obviously, i cannot think of anything more important. there are a lot of very good schools, and a lot that are not so good. those that are not, i am really startled. of course, i do not have the answer. when i listen to experts in the field, they say nobody really has the answer. the person who is the principal or the headmaster makes a difference. experiment. see what works. that is what franklin roosevelt said. try something. if it does not work, try something else. but of course we should. i am sure in many places they are. i cannot think of anything more important i would like to spend more money on. we know money alone does not do it but it does help.

i tend to agree with where you are coming from. >> good evening, my name is jeffrey from miami-dade college. you mentioned the process in which you make decisions. sometimes they are very challenging. which case have you decided on that was the most difficult? >> another rule, nobody speaks twice until everybody speaks once. another unwritten rule is tomorrow is another day. if we are both on the court, you and i would have been the best allies on case one, but that has nothing to do with how we may be total enemies in case two. the fact that it is onto the next one means i do not go back and again on those two often. i might on occasion, but i have had some terrible times on difficult cases, but i tend to drive them out of my memory. there is one where i had to decide something about kansas.

there was some kind of rule about mental illness in prisons and what they could do. i ended up thinking it was a violation of the clause. here is how the psychology works, and it will work the same way with you. you have a difficult decision to make. not concerning yourself. who knows once our own ego gets into it. not concerning yourself. i have asked businesspeople to make this decision. my goodness this is difficult. then you go back and forth and decide. you decide. the next day, you thought it was difficult. do you think the next day, it was so difficult, i should have decided differently? no, you think, that was very

difficult, but i am glad i decided the way i did. two weeks after that, i am glad i decided the way i did. two months after that, how right i was. that is how the human mind works. that is why it is tough for me to find one case. >> i'm sorry to say this will have to be the last question. >> i am from quinnipiac university. as a supreme court justice, aware you have to make difficult decisions, what is it about the judicial system, where many people may see it as flawed or broken, that you love so much? >> it is a good job being a lawyer. everybody has views on something. being a lawyer or a judge, you have to bring your mind to work as well as your heart, both. you are helping individuals or you are helping communities, you are trying to be helpful, but in

a particular way which requires thought. it is that combination of head and heart that i think makes law a great interest to people. as far as the courts are concerned, probably the primary characteristic is what i have said before, a rule of law. i get this question so often. we had a group of african judges from burkina faso, a group from togo, and a woman from ghana, who is the president of the supreme court asked the same question. why do people do what you say? it is very hard to answer. you have to look at history, they do not always. think of the history we have been through. think of little rock, where you

had a governor, in my lifetime, standing in the schoolhouse doors, saying those children will not come into this white school and integrate. and then you had a president called the 101st airborne out. they were the heroes of world war ii, and those children were taken into the school. and that was not the end of it. a year later they closed the school. but it began a series of things like the freedom marchers, martin luther king, and all sorts of things. what i say to people is do not talk to the lawyers. do not confine your discussion of the rule of law to lawyers. contrary to popular belief, there are 310 million americans who are not lawyers. it is the fact that they support this rule of law that is the tremendous asset to our country. go out to villages.

convince people why it is a desirable thing to have a group of judges who are human and can make mistakes decide things that will make a difference to your life and could be very unpopular. that is hard to do. but we have this asset in our country. not perfect, but it is there. we participate in a system that can transmit that from generation to generation, and allow so many people to live together without killing each other. that is a wonderful thing. and it is probably that which i see -- as you can see, i feel this. it is probably that that i see as the major virtue of these courts, and it is the rule of law. >> thank you all for your questions. justice breyer, thank you very much. [applause]

>> if you could, maybe indulge us -- a colleague of mr. williams recommended that, justice, you might enjoy the opportunity in this situation to ask mr. williams a question. >> [laughter] i hope when you can do is use your influence. can you keep the professional journalists at work in the supreme court? >> i certainly hope so. as one, i would like to continue doing it. the news media is changing rapidly. where people get their information is changing so fast. i learned the other day, we have a website, nbcnews.com. most people find stories on that website not by going to it, but by what is passed along to them by their friends in social media, or what they find in a blog.

what we find more and more is our audience is not coming to us, we have to go to our audience. those of you in this room, you probably do not watch television or read a newspaper as much as justice breyer and i did when we were growing up. the news media are changing because of that. what we cover, government, the supreme court, is still tremendously important, still an enormous amount of interest. one last anecdote. when the supreme court decided the healthcare case, the website scotusblog got over a million hits that day. there is enormous interest in the court. it is a great institution to cover and i love every day that i am there. thank you. [applause] >> on behalf of the washington center, edward kennedy institute

for the senate, students and faculty here, thank you for a wonderful evening. as a token of our appreciation, a fashionable washington center tote bag, guaranteed to hold many pounds of legal brief. [applause] thank you so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> on the next washington journal, the latest on the house and senate race in 2014. and nathanffy gonzalez will discuss. followed by a conversation on income inequality. we will talk about security concerns ahead of the winter olympics and sochi russia. calls, tweets, and

facebook comments. like beginning -- live beginning at 7:00 a.m. >> millions of egyptians came down to the streets in protest. this uprising defies any definition. andinutes after landing driving toward tahrir square, the military came down to the street. they check the car. they found my previous film. it was not a good film to find by military intelligence. they said, come with us. we just want to talk with you for a wild. not know a place, i do the location. you do not include interrogating you. i realize that a certain point that this dvd i had in the car

-- i needed to get rid of it. i may midway to the car and excuse myself to the bathroom and tried to destroy the dvd. i do not know if you've ever tried to break apart a dvd, but they are quite hard. drain anddown the went back into the interrogation room feeling confident that i have gotten rid of evidence that could keep me there for a lot longer than i wanted to be. later, theminutes guy cleaning the bathroom came in with a piece of the dvd in his hand. >> more with the director of an academy award-winning nominated -- academy award nominated director. former tv writer evan sayet talks about liberals and the so-called mainstream media.

he spoke to the conservative form of silicon valley this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> good evening, everybody. happy new year. i'm in wending my way right up front that i am taking the easy way out tonight with my introduction for tonight's guest speaker, evan sayet. there is no reason for me to invent the wheel when i can refer to comments made by three well- respected conservatives. david horwitz says that he is simply the best political comedian working in america today. about his book, bill whiddle says, perhaps the most important book i have read in the past 10 years. last but not least, andrew

breitbart, describing a lecture from the heritage foundation, said this, one of the five most important conservative speeches ever given. by the way, this talk at heritage was the single most- seen lecture and the heritage foundation's history. in his latest talk, again delivered to the heritage foundation in 2013, evan talks about his unified field theory of liberalism to show how and why the mainstream media has gotten literally every major story of the modern liberal era not just wrong, but as wrong as wrong can be. with their every mischaracterization benefiting all that is evil, failed, and wrong while working to the detriment of all that is good, right, and successful. evan has written and/or produced in just about every medium that

exists, including television, movies, documentaries. he segued into politics after 9/11. it is worthwhile mentioning that he joins an exclusive circle of prestigious individuals, those who switched sides and became champions of individual freedoms or conservatives. that circle includes david mamet, david horwitz, andrew breitbart, milton friedman, thomas sole, and ronald reagan. not bad company. evan's career is divided almost exactly down the middle. his time split between political humor and serious lectures. dissecting and analyzing the liberal mindset is not a job for the lightweight. the book is called brilliant. if you had not had a chance to read it, i recommend you do.

evan will be selling and signing his book after the q&a tonight. please join me in giving a warm welcome to evan sayet. >> i just have to correct rita. i don't think it is that we switch sides, i think it is that we grew up. there is this belief when you are a child in liberalism because there are no consequences to your behaviors. by definition, your parents look out for you to make sure you do not get hurt so you can have this fantasy life of being a liberal. then you enter the real world and most of us grow up. i think the lights are good enough for me. c-span, am i ok?

how cool is that c-span follows me wherever i go. you guys get to enjoy me. i have heard me. but i was really enjoying listening to rita. i never quite know how to start these talks. having given that original lecture to the heritage foundation that my friend andrew breitbart called one of the five most conservative speeches ever given, and his story is another story that the mainstream media has gotten wrong. how can you be against truth? having given this lecture that people started to call the unified field theory of liberalism, 20 people send me individually. having explained it all,

having explained why good, decent, otherwise smart people i'm not talking about the ideologues. we know why the marxist sides was evil, they want to overthrow western civilization and replace it with marxism. the islamist wants to overthrow western civilization. my cousin is not an ideologue, he is not a marxist. he is not an islamist. he is just a jew. i am talking about your colleagues, i mentioned barack obama. it is the modern liberal. it could have been hillary clinton. it could have been john kerry. it is an ideology, a way of thinking. that is what i explained to perfection because it happens to be true. forgive me. what am i supposed to do? it is true.

i can lie and be modest. but having already explained it all, what is my next talk to be about? it seems to me i have two options. i can either give that original talk over and over and over again. how many of you have seen that original lecture? more applause because it is more impressive on tape. this is what i'm going to do. i want you to tell the people who haven't seen it how great it was. [silence] i will stick my fingers in my ears. so i can give that original lecture and a good many of you will be hearing it for the first time, but it will be redundant and boring for you guys who have seen it. or i can take the unified field theory of liberalism and show

how it applies in the specific. i will show how it applies to the mainstream media. i have a problem. in order to show how the unified field theory of liberalism applies in the specific, you have to know the unified field theory of liberalism, which means i'm back to giving that first talk over and over again. i start my talks with a truncated version of that original speech. it is available on my website at heritage.org. it is available a thousand places. find it, watch it. it is 47 minutes long. in the original talk, i began by saying to the audience, i have got to imagine that just about every one of us in this room recognizes that the democrats are wrong on just about every issue.

what i said to the crowd that they is that i am here to propose to you that it is not just just about every issue. it is quite literally every issue. it is not just wrong, it is as wrong as wrong can be. 2007 -- i said, give the modern liberal the chance between saddam hussein and the united states. he will not only side with saddam hussein, but he will viciously slander good and decent americans to do so. bush lied, people died. general "betray us." give the modern liberal the choice between the vicious mass murdering dictator yasser arafat and that tiny and wonderful

democracy of israel, he will plagiarize maps, falsify documents, and engage in one blunt libel after another like jimmy carter did in his despicable book "peace, not apartheid." domestic policy, social policy. give the modern liberal the choice between promoting childhood abstinence and childhood promiscuity. they will use their movies, their tv shows, jerry brown will make a law that a 17-year-old man can follow a 5-year old girl into the bathroom if he feels like he is a woman. at the same time, a rather typical democratic party organization, a pro-abortion group masquerading as a pro- choice organization, will hold a

fundraiser they call f abstinence. it is not just f, it is the entire word. vulgarizing society is a part of the modern liberal agenda. why? for the full answer, watch that full video. even better, read my book. as that talk was going viral, one million people have now seen it. that is unheard of. as the talk was going viral, i was reminded that a theory, even in the softest of soft sciences, like psychology, philosophy, a theory is not accepted as true simply because it offers an eloquent narrative or an elegant narrative to describe things that have already happened.

in order for a theory to be accepted as true, you have to be able to take that theory and then anticipate behaviors that have not yet come to be. when i gave that talk in 2007, i could not have known barack obama would become the democratic party nominee. i certainly could not have known he would be elected president. obviously, i could not have possibly have known that as president of the united states barack obama would bow down before some world leaders, but not others. but yet my theory had anticipated to perfection that if a future president obama were to bow down before some world leaders but not others, it would be to the despot at king of saudi arabia to whom he would bow. it would be to the symbol of japanese imperialism that brought us the bataan death march to whom he would bow. but not to the queen of england.

see, i could not have known that back in 2007, that a future president obama -- any modern liberal -- would order nasa to use its dwindling resources to honor one religion, while spitting in the face of two others. this is what he did. i could have predicted he would honor islam. he ordered nasa to use the resources to send a muslim into space. while at the same time when the jews were imperiled in israel, he publicly snubbed the jews. he made the peaceloving dalai lama exit the white house for a photo opportunity in front of the barack obama family trash. i could not have known back in 2007 just who would and would not give a future modern liberal president gifts. my theory had anticipated to

perfection that barack obama, a modern liberal, would accept an anti-american propaganda vote from the socialistic hugo chavez while unceremoniously returning a gift of a bust of winston churchill to our allies in great britain. i could not have known back in 2007 just where revolutions would crop up across the globe. had i known, my theory anticipated to perfection that a modern liberal president would oppose the democratic uprising in iran, support the overthrow of america's ally who attacked peace in egypt, and would call for a leftist coup to overthrow our democratic ally in honduras. see, my theory was able to anticipate every single one of these policies, not because barack obama is a muslim. i don't care if he is or isn't.

i don't care what he believes but what he does. not because he is black. it is because the modern liberal, there is something about his ideology that leads them to invariably and inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right, the ugly over the beautiful, the profane over the profound, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those the lead to success. so what is that something? let me give you the essentials that you will need for tonight's stock. that is just the preamble. [laughter]

the first two laws of the unified field theory of liberalism. the first two are what you need for tonight. i will give it to you the way it is written in the book. the first law is that the modern liberal was raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative mess. -- imperativeness. because it's opposite is discrimination. in the 1980's, by no coincidence, the children of the 1960's when they became the professors of the 1980s, the journalists of the 1980s, the entertainers of the 1980s -- in the 1980's, thinking was outlawed. [laughter] it was deemed a hate crime. here is the concept behind it. anything that you believe, anything that i believe,

anything that you believe, even you, anything that you believe is going to be so tainted by your personal prejudices -- prejudices we all have, it is all part of being human -- the color of your skin, nation of your ancestry, height, weight, sex and so on -- anything that you believe is going to be so tainted by your prejudices, that the only way not to be a bigot is to never think at all. that is why their answer to everything is you are racist, a homophobe, a xenophobia. the only reason you could be against something is because you are a racist or a phobic. raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because it's opposite is discrimination. the second law of the unified field theory of liberalism, as

it is written in the book, indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of beliefs. indiscriminateness leads invariably and inevitably to siding with evil over good him a wrong over right, ugly over beautiful, and so on. because of no religion, no culture, and a behavior, no person, no moral governing, if nothing is better than anything else, then success is unjust. why should a person, a nation, a government, a religion succeed and it is not better than any other? there was liberalism that says everything is equal. it does not make everything meet in the middle. it makes the better bad.

failure, as proved by nothing other than the fact that it has failed, it is proof positive that something is taken place. why should it fail if it is not worse than anything else? by the same logic, by extension, if success and failure are proof of injustice -- then great success and great failure is proof of great injustice and at a certain point, great and sustained success and failure -- 6000 years of jewish survival, thriving when it is oppressed, america surviving -- i wonder why they hate america and israel most. why there is this campaign to ostracize and destroy and jimmy carter will lie for jewish

deaths? how is israel worse than that? great and sustained success and failure is proof positive not just a great and sustained injustice, but that this injustice is intentional and part of an evil conspiracy. why? why an evil conspiracy? think about it this way. let's say you are playing roulette. no numbers better than any other number. you spin the wheel, some people win, some people lose. that is the game. one thing is for sure. you cannot say the people are smarter or harder working or better than the losers. what if that same number came up 10 times in a row? and the same people win and the same people lose? that might not prove conspiracy, but it is a cosmic injustice. you can see the losers looking over at the winner's pile and

going, you did not build that. [laughter] [applause] demanding just a little redistribution. now what happens if that same number comes up 100 times in a row? and the same people win and the same people lose? if you're the casino, you don't have to know how the conspiracy is done. you just sit around trying to figure it out. the one thing you know for sure is that the game was fixed. great and sustained success and failure is proof positive that the injustice was intentional and part of an evil conspiracy. those are the two laws that you need to know for tonight. they were raised to believe that indiscriminateness was a moral imperative and indiscriminateness of thought

leads to siding with a lesser over the better, the ugly over the beautiful. are you with me? almost? [laughter] what's it going to take? just the rest of the speech. i will ask you again at the end. let's see if my the unified field theory of liberalism applies to the mainstream media during the modern liberal era. the first thing that i would have to establish is has the mainstream media gotten every major story of our lifetime not just wrong, but as wrong as wrong can be? let me begin to prove this by pointing out one of the good guys. do i get to recommend a speaker? bret stephens. an editorial writer for the wall

street journal. many years back, he wrote a piece that began something close to this. a historian, looking back at the contemporary journalism leading up to the major events of our lifetime, looking for clues and that reporting as to the major events that were about to transpire, will have found that reporting to be mostly useless. stevens is wrong. he is wrong and that he does not go anywhere near far enough. that reporting was not just useless, but anybody who looked for things at the time wanting to know what might come next around the world will have been led to anticipate exact way the opposite of what actually came to be.

i want you to think of our news media as our personal intelligence agencies. they put their operatives in the field, sending back dispatches, to provide us with inside information so we can make good, personal policy. anybody who trusted the mainstream media, abc, nbc, cbs, time magazine, newsweek, the new york times, everybody but fox -- we will talk about fox -- anybody who trusted the mainstream media as their source for intelligence not only got useless intelligence, they got intelligence that was diametrically opposed to the truth. stevens offers examples. many of us will it -- remember how many of us were stunned at the collapse of the soviet union. how is it we were all so

completely unaware? an empire does not collapse in a day, a week on a month, a year. anymore than it is built in a day, a week, a month, a year. how was it that we did not know this empire was about to collapse? because to a point, stevens is right. the reporting was useless. it was worse than useless because as the soviet union was crumbling to nonexistence, they were still telling us the soviet union was a coequal superpower. tied for first in the strongest nation in all of human history, when it is actually crumbling to nonexistence. this is not a little bit off, folks. ok? this is diametrically opposed to the truth. the mischaracterization making an evil empire appear stronger

than in fact it was. there is the paradigm. not just wrong, but as wrong as wrong can be. always to the benefit of evil, failure, and wrong. to the detriment of good, right, and successful. most of us will remember the contemporary journalism of the 1980's that was telling us that japan was an unstoppable economic juggernaut. this, as they were about to collapse, into what is now a decades long recession. unstoppable economic juggernaut -- decades long recession. this is not a little bit off. this is diametrically opposed to the truth. in this case, the mischaracterization making a non-western culture appear stronger than in fact it was.

how many of us leading up to 9/11 were stunned to learn that islam had spread across a third of the planet if not more? the most vicious, mass murdering and homophobic, misogynistic, and the somatic -- anti-semitic [laughter] how is it we did not know this was going on around the globe? because not only was the reporting useless, but the mainstream media was telling us, they continue to tell us, that islam is a religious of peace -- religion of peace. the most murderous, hateful, violent, torturous ideology -- a religion of peace. diametrically opposed to the

truth, obviously to the benefit of an evil, fails, and wrong ideology. you have to be a little bit old to remember this next example. back in the 1970's when we were being told that americans -- it was the wild, wild west -- we were lawless gunslingers. time magazine had as its cover new york city, ungovernable. we are savages. rudy giuliani comes along and new york city is governable and it is the safest large city anywhere in the world. the mischaracterization making the good and wonderful people of america appear savage.

i don't remember stevens mentioning the vietnam war. a good many of you know that the tet offensive which was reported as a act breaking defeat for freedom was in fact a war ending defeat for the most murderous ideology in human history, communism. i could go on and on and on and on. benghazi was not an coordinated attack. it was our freedom of speech. i will add two more and then i will get into the why. anyone who trusted cnn as their source for intelligence leading up to the first democratic vote in iraq, was told that our mission was a failure, that the streets were chaotic, that no one would go out and vote and those who did would be mowed down by al qaeda. do you remember the pressure on president bush to postpone

indefinitely this vote? talk to me. i am live. i am here. folks at home, you do not have to talk to me. i am not live there. what happened? millions of iraqis went out and voted. a higher percentage went out and voted than americans voted in our own election. not only did millions of iraqis go out and vote, but they dipped their fingers in purple and danced in the streets for hours. to my knowledge not a single one was mowed down by al qaeda on that day. virtually no one would vote and those who did would be killed. millions voted and no one was killed. that is diametrically opposed to the truth. making al qaeda appear stronger than they were.

anybody who trusted "the new york times" during the first battle to liberate 30 million human beings from rape, torture, and genocide in iraq -- anybody who trusted the times to describe that first battle said that we were pinned down, that it was a bloodbath. in fact, "the new york times" used to the cue word quagmire. when our forces arrived in baghdad three weeks later, it was in fact the culmination of the swiftest military victory of its time in all of human history. never before had that much enemy territory been traversed in so short a period of time. quagmire, in fact the swiftest military victory in human history. that is diametrically opposed to the truth. all to benefit a mass murdering, genocidal rapist and torturer

and prevent us from liberating 30 million human beings. the question becomes why? because i don't think there is a single one of us who thinks that katie couric is an evil genius. [laughter] on both counts. [laughter] she is not evil. she is far from a genius. she is an idiot. to show you what idiots journalists are, this is a woman whose greatest credential as a journalist is that she was a daytime chat show host who once interviewed and got a secret recipe. obviously, they know the news is a joke. then to have the university of southern california, the

annenberg school of journalism, to give her the walter cronkite award for excellence him -- in television journalism. if she is the most excellent television journalist out there, how bad must wolf blitzer be? [laughter] [applause] why did she do it? what does she take every news story and flip it on its head and ally like nbc news edited the 911 calls to make it sound might -- like george zimmerman what are they do it? why does anderson cooper do it? he is not an evil genius. on both counts. he is not evil. he is a professional cutie pie. he does his job well.

i don't go that way. [laughter] but if i did, i think andy might be my guy. [laughter] he puts on a black shirt, he looks serious, he must be important. it is not just those two. it is across the board. except for fox news. and across the decades. so why do they do it? here's the answer. if i were to poll the great journalists of all time -- i don't mean the most famous, those with the bluest eyes, the highest ratings, the richest -- i certainly don't mean those with the most walter cronkite awards -- if i were to ask them, what is the single most important trait in good and accurate reporting? anybody? how do you get to the truth? i'm looking for the truth? would anybody have a problem

with the word objectivity? objectivity. let me now introduce you to a man who is perhaps the most beloved and influential modern liberal of all time. his name is howard zinn. he is adored. when he died, springsteen wrote a song to him. zinn is the author of the single most assigned text on american history among public schools and private schools. this means that your children are learning our history from the man i am about to tell you more about. it also means that whatever administrators pick that book to be the history book, they also picked all the other books that your children are learning from. howard zinn said, objectivity is impossible.

it is also undesirable. that is, if it were possible, it would be undesirable, because if you think that history should serve a social purpose, then you make your choices based on that. in other words, he is an ideologue. the facts are not important to advancing his ideology. i don't think i would get much disagreement from the left that he is a leftist ideologue. katie couric is not an ideologue. why does she do it? it is because that in the 1980's, the hippies that are not now teaching at our schools and the children of the 1960's, they used their power because they recognized objectivity is undesirable because it gets in

the way of their stupid ideology that sounds brilliant, but it does not work -- you cannot be objective. are you sure that is not productive? you can't be objective. that is your bigotries. they use the power. the ideologues who believe objectivity's undesirable to brainwash successive generations. in the schools, starting at the age of five. by the way, there is a book written by a liberal, where he proudly -- this is not self- conscious or tongue-in-cheek. -- he is proud of the fact that all i ever really need to know i learned in kindergarten. it is true. after kindergarten, you cannot be objective, so all you learn is to coexist. you do not coexist without. live and let live requires you to live. it is really not that deep. those who recognize that objectivity is undesirable to

the utopian ideology use the schools and the other mediums -- media -- to brainwash successive generations into believing it was impossible. what is it that makes objectivity impossible? anybody? it is the idea that anything you believe is going to be so tainted by your personal prejudices that the only way not to be a big it is to not think at all. thinking is a hate crime. so now, the most important trait in good and accurate reporting is not only undesirable, it is evil. it is the act of bigotry. to be an objective reporter. this is why they hate fox news. you do not hate people because they are wrong. we don't hate katie couric.

we wish she was not an idiot. we wish she would go do a daytime chat show. we do not hate anderson cooper. they hate fox news because fox news is evil. because fox news reports objectively. because the report objectively, they are far more accurate. then are any of the other news networks. how do i know this? because if you trusted cnn as your source for intelligence leading up to that first democratic vote in iraq, you were stunned when exactly the

opposite game to be. if you had watched fox news, you might not have known it would be a million, you might not have known the color of the ink, you might not have known the nobody would be killed, but when what came to be came to be, if your source for intelligence was fox news, you are far less surprised by reality. if your source for intelligence during that first battle to liberate the people of iraq was the new york times, when what came to be came to be, you were stunned. but it fox news, you might not have known it would be three weeks -- the tide could have changed along the way and so the reporting changes along the way but when what came to be in iraq came to be, if fox news that been your source for intelligence, you are far more intelligent. when the muslim brotherhood took over in the arab spring that the leftist media could not tell us because that would be bigotry don't they want freedom and democracy just like we do? then you are a bigot. [laughter] they could not report objectively. of course the muslim brotherhood is going to take over. excuse me. try talking every day for an hour.

and then going out and doing karaoke. [laughter] so now, the single most important trait in good and accurate reporting is not just undesirable, it is an act of evil to be avoided at all cost and to be refiled when seen practiced by others. katie couric wants to be a good newswoman. anderson cooper wants to be a good journalist. wolf blitzer wants to be a good journalist. but the most important tool has been taken away from them. but what they substituted is that while you are never, ever, ever, ever an objective reporter, what you strive for is a concept that sounds good. it sounds like objectivity, but in fact it is its opposite. the good journalist today went

to journalism school -- the good journalist is never objective, he is always neutral. what is the difference between objectivity and neutrality? let me give you a silly example. let's say that keith olbermann your history is in the sports world. your assignment was to cover the new york jets, san francisco 49ers game. the jets win 87-3. it is my story. [laughter] i get to do it and whatever i want. forget it. i will make at the 49ers.

i will make it the bengals. the jets win 87-3. your article is about how the jets are a better team when you are a reporter. the most salient facts of the touchdowns, the interceptions, the facts, the rest. how do you know the jets are really a better team? how do you know that you don't just think the jets are a better team but you grew up near an airport? [laughter] and you always love their planes? how do you know the bengals are a lesser team? maybe your favorite uncle was eaten by a tiger. [laughter] so to make sure there is zero bias in your reporting, zero, that is why they are so arrogant about it -- there is no bias in

my reporting -- you have to report that the jets and the bangles are equally good teams. now you have a problem. every story you write is going to be wrong. the jets are a better team in my story. the bengals are a lesser team. but now the purpose of your article has to become, how did these two equally good teams come to such disparate outcomes? obviously, the jets must've cheated. [laughter] but we are not even talking a little bit of cheating. it wasn't like 17-14. that has got to be an evil conspiracy. with that much cheating going on, why didn't the referees, penalties? -- call more penalties? forget the referees. why didn't the announcers in the booth say, hey, i just saw a holding.

who could afford -- who could afford a conspiracy of this size? the evil one percenters. and now it becomes the job to invent the narrative. of coarse they don't want that bengals in the super bowl. the world is flat. what the hell does that mean? the world is flat? this is going off subject. you're going to give me a rousing ovation, then i will take questions. let me just expand this to, this is a silly example, but there was one aspect of that industry that was overwhelmingly

conservative. they get just as rich as the rockstar, they're just as beautiful in their own way of -- and get rich at the same young age. and yet their conservatives, do you know who they are? professional athletes. why? because athletes do things. they catch the ball, they dropped the ball. you cannot say this victory -- you cannot say it is bigot. he was jewish, and he dropped the ball because it was pigskin, no! there is also a aspect of the industry that is overwhelmingly conservative. stuntmen. they have to know overwhelmingly

objectively what they are doing. if you're like alec baldwin, you get 10 takes to do it. but what if you were raised to believe, and then it was reinforced from kindergarten on all the way through overture elementary school, junior high, alan g -- all the way through graduate school that you're not allowed to report that any culture, any nation, any form of government is better than any other. after all, how do you not notice just your prejudices? barack obama was asked point blank do you believe in the american exceptionalism? he made a very clever answer and

when he said yes, but then that it clear he meant no. he said i believe in american exceptionalism as the greeks believe in greek exceptionalism and the british believe in british exceptionalism. it is not based on new think of the fact that he believes they are -- that he lives here. it is not our protestant work ethic, our christian heritage, he just happens to live here. you're stuck with it. if america is not exceptional, then how is somebody like barack obama to explain america's successes? given that we are the most successful nation in all of human history, barack obama and the modern liberal has no choice to up their ideology. short of that, given that we're the most successful nation in

human history, the modern liberal has no choice but to believe that we are the latest greatest injustice in human history. when you go back to the journalist, you wonder why they are so arrogant and lie about israel? how do you explain tel aviv and the gaza strip? how do you explain symphony orchestras and the ied? there's nothing a journalist is allowed report. they want peace, that is what they have to bleed, other eyes otherwise there something wrong with islam, and they cannot say that. why do the muslims murder jewish children? blow up buses, that is the new

story. the journalist goes and say the palestinians must want peace, so the jews must have provoked it. now they need to look for what that provocation is. because they do not provoke him they to find something moronic. it is because a jew build an extension on his home in jerusalem. you have to be a moron, but there is nothing else they are allowed to believe. if it was a well-timed, well coordinated mass murder of an ambassador, then it must be something wrong with islam. that is off the table. it doesn't matter about a video made 6 months ago.

i laugh -- you and i laugh, except for the fact that it is so horrible, but how much more moronic must the new york times the -- be to believe something so stupid, but they have no choice. they have been morally and will intellectually retarded at the level of a five-year-old child. coexist. that is the lesson they are taught in kindergarten. you will find it in the book. if you boil down the intellectual rhetoric of thomas friedman, and another i particularly dislike, if you boil down the pseudo- intellectualism of the leftist editorialist to its essence, it is one of the lessons they learned in kindergarten, extrapolated into pseudo- sophisticated language. those are the two things i think you understand.

they were raised to believe that thinking is a hate crime, and indiscriminateness lead to indiscriminate beliefs. it leads invariably to siding with the soviet union over the united states. saddam hussein over america. mass murdering corrupt terrorist dictators over israel. thugs like trayvon martin, one story after another after another. i would be very happy to take questions. thank you for having me. [applause]

as a understand it, the questions of already been prepared? >> no. we are passing cards around the audience. please write them down and bring them over in this direction. first question, you used the term modern liberal several times. i'm intrigued by the word modern, is this a new phenomenon? did this person not exist a few decades ago? >> no, this ideology has

actually existed since john clouseau. something stunning changed post- world war ii, leaving up to it again -- leading up to it. from the dawn of time, until just before i was born, every human being had to avoid disease, hunger, poverty, and physical pain. by the time i came of age, polio was vanquished, the chickenpox was a gift, disease was vanquished. hunger, by the time i came of age, find a dollar in the

street, and you can eat ramen noodles for three days. poverty, is so nonexistent and america they had to invent a whole new terminology to define what poverty is. poverty being something that kings and czars and folks of your would have happily traded for. hot and cold running water, showers, disposals, televisions, cars. post-world war ii, you did not have to be smart, because this there was nothing horrible that could happen to an idiot. they were called the hippies. [laughter] the hippie, 200 years ago would starve to death.

but with welfare programs and so much abundance, and whatnot but you could have a moronic ideology that has some followers that can be able to become the teachers with nothing but clever words. >> why do you think so many american jews are liberal? >> this is a simple question, but not a short answer. in order to be called a jew, to even call yourself a jew, is different than any other religion that is out there. in order to call yourself a christian, you have to believe something. you to believe that jesus christ as your lord and savior. if you believe this, you're a christian. if you do not believe this, you're not a christian. if you do believe that, there are certain rights, and rituals,

and teachings that tend to follow. to call yourself a muslim, you have to believe something. you have to believe that the koran is the final testament of god, and mohammed as is -- is perfect messenger. if you do not believe this, you're not a muslim. if you do believe this, there are certain rights, ritual practices you have to follow. but to call yourself a jew, you do not have to believe anything. all you have to do is plop out of a jewish womb, [laughter] so let's call these jews the plopping jews. there's absolutely no -- sometimes they're called secular jews, the non-jewish jews,

there's nothing jewish about them except that action which was not -- which was involuntary. why would you expect this large section of jews who are not jews to think like a jew about jewish things? then, you have your three groups of jews who are in any way jewish at all. you have reformed jews, conservative jews, and orthodox jews. the reformed jew has done one thing, in order to be a reformed jew you have done one thing jewish by choice your entire life. do you know what it is? bar mitzvah is still too young.

circumcision? [laughter] would you make that choice? [laughter] maybe you have. by the way, i think it's fair to let you know that my jewish upbringing was a plopping jew. it consisted of three days. at the age of eight days, people i had barely met a week ago took a knife to my most sensitive part. they were so pleased with what they had done they threw themselves a small party. [laughter] 12 years and 357 days later, i said words of a language i did not understand. they told me i was a man.