thanks for being with us. one nation prevailed in asserting its interest in the summit in northern ireland and it was not the united states. two days of talks at the g 8 in bellfast and a one hour discussion between presidents obama and putin on syria turned out to be an 'em brarsment for the president. the call was for assad to step down and a condemn nation of assad after putin incestsisted e

is no chemical regime as the obama white house claims. president obama's foreign policy looks increasingly muddled and confused particularly and most urgely on the issue of syria. on the eve of that summit the obama said it would be sending small arms to the rebels some of whom have dangerous ties to al qaeda but in an interview which was taped last sunday president obama denied his policy on syria had changed at all. with a penchant for the inconsistent, he warned about a deeper involvement in the syrian civil war. >> it is very easy to slip slide your way into deeper and ddeper commitment because if it's not working immediately, then what ends up happening is six months from now people say, well, you

gave the heavy ar tilry and now what we need is x and now what we nned is y. because until assad is defeated in this view, it's never going to be enough, all right? >> so for now the president seems content to offer aid and that aid by the way is beginning to add up. president obama pledging another $300 million in humanitarian assistance, half of which will be sent to syria and half will be divided between refugees and native country. which means the total to more than $800 million, most of the money committed over the past two months and any resolution in syria will have to wait until peace talks which have been scheduled for next month in geneva are to be held before august. the president still hasn't given a clear defense of the nsa and

surveillance programs and for that matter neither has congress. my first guest, general alexander said -- andrew mccarthy is the author of the best sellers, jihad and the grand fever. nice to have you with us. general alexander was forth right it seemed. he made a compelling case and even since in that committee with the hearing room the committee was growing up a little. i didn't hear what congressman ship started giving thh general valuable advice i'm sure but it seemed more mature than it's been. >> you have a real adult who was in complete command of the facts and i think made the most compplling defense of this program. now, i don't think it will be

enough because there's nothing like the bully pulpit and as effective as general alexander is, he's not the president. these programs really need the defense of the oval office and specifically president obama. >> the president's defense of his administration, this agency, rose to this level. he thought it was pretty transparent, the prism program. what does he need to be effective in the defense of nsa and his own administration? >> anything but transparent but i think after five years with the oh, passty of this administration transparent is the butt of a joke that will be effective in the discourse. he needs to explain much like general alexander did why we need these programs and what the structural civil liberties protections are in them because the run away freight train here is that people who are opposed

to the program and saw the issue as a way to relitigate everything they lost when the patriot act was authorized, have stolen the narrative here and basically have people thinking that the intelligence community is actively spying on americans. >> i think today -- if i'm correct in sensing some higher level of maturity on the part of the committee. perhaps it's about to ebb. they of course always have the reinforcing value of the national media given the politics of the matter. but hopefully we'll see more attention paid to the chinese cyber attacks in this country than on trying to take up the time of those who are leading the effort to protect the country and its infrastructure. let me turn to the g 8 summit in bellfast. the president talked away basically slapped around by putin. it was an abysmal performance

for the united states. >> how could it be anything but though. you have ideological progress sifs who think that the way to conduct the foreign policy is not to be guided by the compass of our own vital interests but to be part of a community in which we recruit countries that are hostile to the united states, very much included russia and give us a veto and that is largely because we're living in barack obama's world and which is the result of it. >> and we will be doing so for some time and in the matter of days we'll be taking up direct talks, the united states will, with the taliban, on a resolution in afghanistan. i mean, this turns our history, our foreign policy for decades

on its head and leads where? >> it leads to where common sense takes you which is that a war has a winner and a loser and if you don't stay in it to win it, you lose. a lot of what has gone on from the president's speech about how he's's basically declaring that the war is over without having to do the hard work to end it in a positive way, they're trying to dress this up into something other than a humiliating defeat for the united states. >> andrew mccarthy, good to have you with us. >> thank you. >> what should edward snowden with treated with? our analyst judge andrew napolitano has a strong opinion and you may find it somewhat controversial. stay with us. ♪

♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] if you can't stand the heat, geoff the test track. get the mercedes-benz you've been burning for going on now at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. hurry, before this oppornity cools off. going on now at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. we replaced people with a machine.r, what? customers didn't like it. so why do banks do it? hello? llo?! if youbank doesn't let you tayou need an ally.on 24/7, hello? ally bank. your money needs an ally.

♪ joining us now fox news senior judicial analyst judge andrew napolitano. judge, edward snowden has brought the world down arnold his head by stepping out on this. some people describe him as a hero, others as a traitor. where are you? >> i have described him as an american hero when i first learned of this and i continue to stand by that position. if he did what he said he did, if he is the person who revealed all the government's unconstitttional behavior, he's confronted with the following. an oath to keep secret the information he was given, on oath to uphold the constitution and a clash between the two. so what do you do? which is higher? his oath to keep secret or his

oath to follow the constitution. the constitution is the supreme law of the land. he has a moral and constitutional obligation to reveal it. >> you used the hypothetical, if. there are a lot of hypotheticals in this. right now i don't know specifically what he's charged. i haven't heard it from him. >> i don't think any -- what he's charged or been charged with? >> what he is charging. represents a violation of the constitution or law. it's unclear. as you step forward and others have to call him a hero, does it give you some trepidation the timing because we are in a speculative era, the timing of his revelations which wiped away a two day summit between the president of the united states and the president of china. his presence in hong kong and his charges that the united states was hacking chinese locations and facilities, does

that all give you any dis quiet? >> it doesn't trouble me at all. the timing of the revelation was set by the reporters to whom he spoke. he's been speaking to them for a long time. secondly, i reject the idea that we should dwell on him, his background or his motivation. we should dwell on what the government has done to us in our name. you used an interesting phrase, whether this is legal or constitutional. they're different. >> i used both of them. >> you did. i'd like to dwell on that for a moment. the congress thinks it can write any law and regulate any behavior and tax any event. in congress's mind whatever it says is legal is legal. but because the constitution restraints them, prohibits a search warrant for 113 million american when they are looking for two or three, it's unconstitutional. when the government has done is legal because the patriot act authorizes it but

unconstitutional because the congress has attempted to disregard the constitution. >> it will be interesting to see where you come down when all the facts are known. >> we learn more facts every day. >> we do and i can't imagine why one wouldn't be dis quieted but you're a man of courage and intellect. >> you mean it takes courage to hit here? >> not at all. >> i'd like to come back when we learn morr about it. >> you've got a deal and we will make it frequently. the white house overloaded with scandals. we'll show you why the president's credibility is sinking lower and lower in tonight's talk. alec, for this missn i upgraded your srt pho.

♪ right. but the most important feature of all is... the capital one purchase eraser. i can redeem t double miles i earned with my venture card to erase recent travepurchases. d with a few clicks, this mission never happed. uh, what's this button do? [ electricity zaps ] ♪ you requested backup? yes. yes i did. what's in your wallet? [ slap! ] [ male announcer ] your favorite foods fighting you?

fight back fast with tums. calcm-rich tums starts working so fast you'll forget you h heartburn. ♪tum tum tum tutums

>> there's a while during the president's first term it seemed he could do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters, at least the national media as well. now the obama white house scandals are coming at such a furious pace nearly everyone seems to have a problem with at least one of those controversies and scandals. take a look at just some of these. one, the internal revenue service, if you pay taxes you miiht be a little upset with them whether it's because they

targeted conservative groups or spend millions of dollars on conferences. the liberal national media is over this scandal by the way. the big three networks have gone from having 96 stories about the irs in the first two weeks when the scandal broke to one story this week. we have a little problem with the way they approach things as you might guess. if you happen to believe congress has the right indeed the obllgation to know what our government is doing at home and abro abroad, you may be offended by the administration's mine month stone wall on benghazi and roger ails put it ell when he said, quote, i've come to the conclusion that i don't even care what the president of the united states was doing that night but i would like to know what the commander in chief was doing that night. if you believe in the first amendment, the freedom of the

press, the white house's sweeping record seizure of documents, should cause your blood to boil over along with the associated press intrusion. fourth, if you are one of those crazy constitutionalists and actually believe in the second amendment and your rights, you might be upset to learn vice-president biden is rebooting his push for gun control next week so you can look forward to that. if you believe in the national interest and plain spokenness from the president's administration, you may be curious as to why this white house won't characterize snowden as an outright traitor. perhaps at the hang on to the idea that it's just a coincidence that nsa leaks came at the same time the president was holding summit with the chinese counter part on chinese cyber attacking. you haven't seen a story about it at all in the wake of these

leaks. six, if you get fired up over women's rights and abuse of power, this administration in general will bet you're revoeltd by accusation that the state department covered up accusations into sexual consult and prostitution. 7, if you believe the obama's administration's claims that they would be the most transparent in history, it probably ticks you off that political appointees and head of agencies have been using secret e-mail accounts to conduct official government business. we'll find out more surely. so the president has all these scandals going on and he doesn't even have a nickname like tricky dick nixon or slick willie clinton. this president does it seems need a nickname given all this. we thought it would be interesting to invite you to share ideas as to what that

nickname would be. e-mail me at lou at loudobbs.com. by the way, just to get you started, our executive producer came up with the first idea, we've already discounted it. his offering was the bamboozler. pretty good, right. let's hear your ideas. president obama and putin agreeing to disagree on syria. what's next for the country that's been torn apart by civil war? the pursuit of a better life for our chdren is something we all share. but who can help prepare them for the opportunities ahead? whcan show them how to build on your success, but not rely on it. who can focus on making your legacy last for generations to come? that someone is a morgan stanley finaial visor. and we're ready to work r you.

for their fafamily. that's why i created the honest company. i was just a concerned mom, with a crazy dream. a wish that there was a company that i could rely on, that did all of the hard work for me. i'm jessica alba, anand the honest company s my dream. [ male announcer ] legalzoom has helped a million businesses successfully get started, including jessica's. launch your dream at legalzoom today. call us. we're here to help.

>> for more now on the different perspectives on syria from the president's putin and obama, we welcome now fox news middle east dr. waleed and fox news military contributor. we thank you for being with us.

this meeting amounted to what as they declared they had different perspectives and basically agreed to disagree? >> well, that's what they've done in northern ireland. the reality on the ground is different. on the ground you hhve a very aggressive syrian regime as we heard in the introduction as the irans across syria. on the other hand an unstoppable al qaeda penetration of the opposition. so the only group with whom we can partner is now being weakened. that's the free syrian army and the secular people of the free syria army and we don't have a syria plan. we have a syria step after step but we don't have a comprehensive strategic plan so far. >> general, we're listening to senator mccain, senator graham and a handful of others but primarily from the republican party saying that we've got to

get involved, there has to be a no fly zone. we have to start arming these rebels. it is a peculiar thing in washington that is erupting for support for another conflict in the middle east. your thoughts? >> i don't think they know what they're talking about. they're talking about supporting general e dress and ease not the one that we just talked about. dr. paul, a former fox military analyst has met on two occasions secular. they are the ones we need to help but we're talking about arming the wrong people. as far as a no fly zone goes, lou, the only no fly zones are in the united states over our air basis where we've grounded one third of our tactical air and now they want to crank it up. we aren't readiness-wise prepared to do this. could we do it, sure but it

would be a great cost to us. it's not going to happen with this administration because they do not have a serious strategy on what to do with syria and what our goals are. that's the very worrisome thing. >> it's all about unconceivable that the united states with the very same leadership that has led us to the result in iraq and afghanistan that the american people and even a would think of those strategies in command. >> we don't have a stomach for it, the public doesn't have a stomach for it. >> let me be clear. i wasn't talking about having the stomach for it but the good judgments and the intelligence, i'm referring to the american

people, to tell failed leaders don't both. >> you have a point. we are not yet talking to the right people. if we want to do anything about it, the administration maximum goal at this point in time is to bring back some sort of balance of power between the opposition in general without defining what is the opposition and the assad regime in the hope to take everybody to geneva where the russians are waiting there not to help us and give us a veto. that road is not going to be a solution. the other critique coming from inside washington, from some members of congress is that we're going to do an all outno fly zone over syria. the general was right when they said there are commanders of the fsa who are secular. they should be invited to

washington, not istanbul, but to congress and clarify what syria ww're going to see after assad if at all. >> talking with the chief of staff in the united states air force some years ago he pointed out to me that we have had our air power engaged, at that time it was some years ago, but now it's 22 years that we have had our air power engaged and no fly zones, in combat whether it's now in afghanistan. this has been an unprecedented persistent use of air power and an air force that has been taken to its limits. has it not? >> absolutely. in those 22 years we've worn a lot of the equipment out. we have not modernized the f 22 which would be absolutely required in syria if the russians put in the 300 service missile.

you have to be steth if you are doing to survive in that. so fundamentally we have 100 f 22s that are capable of operating in this regime. over this time frame we've continued to draw down the number of squadrons that we have. we've put them in the bone yard through sequestration and other budget cuts. lou, you are spot on. we have over the last 22 years, we're not the same air force that we were 22 years ago. >> and we're deploying f16s to jordan. i'm not entirely sure what will be the result of that. we are looking at continued incremental steps toward ratcheting up at least the potential for conflict. what would be the outcome if we do engage in russia and are we prepared for such a conflict? is this commander in chief prepared for such a conflict?

>> i don't have an answer to that. what i can say is there is no strategic plan. there are three conditions for our success in syria. number one to partner with the right people. we want to see them in washington. number two, we need to tell quarter and the other arab stops stop funding and three, we need to be prepared for confrontation with he's bull la and iran. >> general, you get the last word as we watch presidents putin and obama come to no conclusion in their meeting. >> president putin wants to humiliate president obama and if president obama doesn't understand that he's going to be humiliate humiliated. radical are being unded in this particular venture so the moderates are not getting the

funding they need. we've exposesed ourselves to a combination of challenges that if we do something we have to go in big time and the american people have not been explained about why we should go do this and we do not have a strategy that would support that structure to go in and try to resolve this problem. it is not a very good decision that we've left the american people. perhaps the israelis are going to have to pull it out themselves. >> gentlemen, thank you very much. the irs scandal targeting conservative groups, delaying applications, playing politics and maybe, maybe committing felonies. jay sakalov represents some of them and joins us here next. so now i can help make this a great block part ♪

male announce ] advair is clinically proven to help significantly improve lung function. uike most copd medications, advair contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator working together to help improve your lung function all day. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for suen symptoms and should not bus more than twice a day. for suen symptoms people with copd taking advair may have a higher cnce of pneumonia. advr may crse your risk of osteoporosis some eyprlems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressue before taking advair. ask your doctor if cluding advair could help improve your lung function. [ male annocer ] advair diskus flutisone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder. get your first prescription free and save on refills at advaircopd.com.

>> my next guest is representing 25 conservative organizations

that are suing the irs claiming their constitutional rights were violated. joining us now is jay sekulow, chief counsel for the american center for law and justice. good to have you here. >> thanks for having me. >> this is a monumental if i may say, monumental legal action to go after the internal revenue service. you're going to have jacob lou, steven miller, holly paas and other unknown irs officials. how did you determine them? >> the reason we listed those individuals, we based on the information that we had during the process of examination hen these groups were trying to get tax exempt we knew who we were dealing with. steve miller said he had no idea, he couldn't remember anybody's names. i had the agent's names, the

letters from lois lerner. we named the complaint. those who had knowledge of or actual engagement in the unlawful acts of the irs. we have listed ten or more unknowns. until we do the discovery we're not going to know how deep or high up it went. we're going to be amending that complaint in the next week or ten days, adding another 25 organizations and additional counts in the complaints, some areas that we have's since learned that we're concerned about. it is a monumental undertaking. we filed a complaint that says you unlawfully targeted. normally they would say denied. how are we going to deny it because we attached the statements where we admitted it.

>> the response from lois lerner in particular, not only an acknowledgment and admission of guilt but then an apology which compounds i would think the evidence on your behalf. >> it does. i mean, the fact that she made the admission and we got the inspector general's report where they acknowledge and uncover the targeting. they keep calling it targeting but targeting is a violation of the constitution. you cannot target someone based on their viewpoint. i have doneemultiple cases on that. i said this the other day on your broadcast. i think the irs is institutionally incapable of self-correcting. this afternoon the irs placed on administrative leave two more officials, one in charge of the obama care, affordable care act enforcement. the agency in complete melt down in my view.

what needs to happen, i think they should scrap the whole internal revenue cord but short of that we need justice for our clients that these unconstitutional acts stop. >> you talked about changes, damages to claims that have to be satisfied here by an agency of the federal government that under our constitution is supposed to be serving the american people, not targeting them. it's clear that they were doing precisely that through their own admission. what damages will you likely succeed or do you want to succeed in recovering from the until revenue service for your clients. >> they need their exemptions. a number of these groups before we got involved incurred substantial legal fees trying to comply with these questionnaires that were coming from the irs. they need reimbursement and we

have clients that have lost grants. we talked abouttthis before, this particular group that was picked up in this dragnet of the irs. they weren't a tea party group but a conservative organization and they were picked up in this dragnet and ended up losing a grant of $30,000. that there's real damages here and then of course there's the getting the government to stop because despite protests to the contrary, jay carney's statements to the contrary, the reality is on may 26 of 2013 we received another letter from one of our clients with ridiculous questions. the process has not stopped and we need to get the government to correct itself and without a court order they're not capable of doing. >> jay, thanks for joining us. the ranks need to follow the right organization toward some satisfaction or justice against the irs and the federal

government. >> google facebook, do they deserve our trust or fear? the millionth customer. would you mind if i go ahead of yoyou? instead had someone go ahead of him and win fiy thousand dollars. congratulations u are our one millionth customer. nobody likes to miss out. that's whallyreats all their customers the me. whetheyou're the rst or the millionth. ifour bank doesn't think you're special anymore, you need an ally. ally bank. your money needs an ally.

>> apple, yahoo! google and microsoft all now claim that they knew nothing about the so called prism surveillance program, but our next guest says we've already given up control of data and platforms to the very companies under discussion. joining us to discuss whether or not we have any control at all over our privacy and security on the web, mier. he's a security expert and author of liars and outliars.

bruce, it's great to have you with us. i think that as a security expert you probably have the best opportunity to explain to us why anyone should not start laughing outloud when google and apple and facebook start talking about they deserve more respect from us because they have just a few thousand request is from nsa and other agencies when they are the ones taking our personal and private information and dis sem nating it across the web, aren't they? >> we are aef giving it to them. it's not that they're taking it. the nsa has to do with them taking it. we're giving it to these companies. in some ways that's the way the web works. they need us to trust them with our data, our friends, our photos, but their real business is betraying that trust to

advertisers. that's their business model. they try to hide it somewhat. they're transparent somewhat but they really rely on us not noticing. the fact that they had a sideline betraying us the government as well is just one more thing. >> i'm curious about this because -- by the way, i didn't say that the companies took the information. i said they dis sem nated it various ways across the web. that is the business model. facebook in particular doesn't care what your privacy preferences are. they're going to do what they will. i find that utterly maddening that people are buying that posture almost unquestioned. >> there's a conflict of interest here. these are the very same types of correlations that you see in prism that facebook and google and others do to better serve

you ads. the difference is going to be the false positives. if google makes a mistake, they

i think it's going to be for a while. that is the way the world works. if you pick a company at random data is in the icloud you're trusting them. you're giving them all your data. there's a reason you do it but you hope that there are interests align with yours. in a lot of these cases, facebook is an example, google, you're not their customer. you're their product they sell to their customers. so the normal customer vender relationship doesn't apply in the same way. it's the fact that we are increasingly the product, that our data is the product makes us really into search for these companies producing data that they use to sell to advertisers and to the government. >> i think you make as i said a fascinating point. but i think we have to persist

in that point and extend it out as far as we can. you talk about we make this tradeoff about our privacy, for convenience of the alignment of interest. what could be a greater alignment of interest than the nsa and a government that is acting in our interest to protect us from terrorist, or a greater convenience than to still be alive at the end of a day thanks to this broad surveillance program. there's a certain political, if you will, group in this country identifiable, easily identified that really hates the nsa doing precisely what google and facebook are doing. but in each instance their acts are almost analogous in both the alignment as you say of interest and the convenience, the tradeoff that is not always conscious, not always understood

by conservatives. >> right. this is what we need to understand. the question is what's being done and how effective is it? we are the taxpayers. we are the ones who pay for this, who make that tradeoff. so we need to be told how effective these programs are. there's been a lot of wheezeling. they might have been effected in some things. examples given have turned out to be false. we don't know whether these programs do any good. we don't know how much they cost, is this a good use of our money? they're very unlikely to be effective. this is why secrecy is bad. we need to know what the government is doing, understand what they're doing. if they're doing a good job, great. if they're doing a lousy job we need to fix it. this is what snowden did that was so good. he gave us information about

what the government is doing in our name with our money. let's find out if it's effective. we have never seen a case that's effective or cost effective. >> why aren't people challenging the business models in the aggregate a highly concentrated and powerful group of companies that could as easy be called like facebook, microsoft and -- did i mention facebook? let me do it again. these are disturbing inconsistencies and contradictions when we start to look at those. we start to lay bare something else everybody should be aware of and that is the politics of those who are most exercised about, say, the nsa and those beginning to get pretty exercised about corporates who are really driving the virtual world in which we find great experience and value.

>> there are two reasons. one i mentioned is ttat the harms are less great. being shown a wrong ad because you're misclassified is different than being investigated because you're misclassified. >> whoa, wait a minute. it's almost ubiquitous privacy is being invaded by the corporates. there is a very narrow, small number who are being investigated by the government. they are not analogous on either size, scale or incident, but we're going to have to pick this up because, bruce, as you said, we could talk for -- come on back and let's continue the conversation. i think it's a fascinating perspective you bring to it and we appreciate you sharing your insight. come on back. >> thank you. >> bruce nyer. up next we're going to be talking about the brand new book, the founding

conservatives, troubles at the creation and how our founding fathers dealt with them and the people who brought the troubles. the author joins me next. [ male announcer ] the mercedes-bz summer event is here. now gethe unmistakablehrill and the incredible rush of the mercedes-benz you've always wanted. ♪ [ tires screech ] buyobetteret here fast [ g girl ] hey, daddy's here. here you go, honey. thank you. [ male announcer ] because a goodhing le this won't last foreve mmm. [ male announcer ] see your authorized dealefor an

incredible offeon the hilarating c250 sport sedan. but hurry. offers end soon. bjorn earns unlimited rewas for his small business take theseags to room 12 please. [ garth ] bjors all busiss earns double miles on every purchase every day. produce delivery. [ bjorn ] just put it on my sparcard. [ garth why settle for less? ahh, oh! [ garth ] great businesses deserve limiterewaward here's your wakake up cal [ male announcer ] get the spark business card om capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose double miles or 2% cash back onvery purchase every day. what's in your walt? crows ] now where's the snooze button? crows ] od, whatever business you're in, th's the business we're in. with premium service like one of the best on-time delivery records ana low claims ratio, we do whever it takes to make your business our business.

od. helping the world keep promises.

♪ lou: a new >> a new book sheds light on some lesser known conservatives who helped secure freedom during the revolutionary war. joining me now is david lefer, professor at nyu ae polytechnic institute. author of this book the founding conservatives, now a group of unsung heros saved the american revolution. congratulations on the book. >> thank you. it's an honor to be here. >> we wish you the ery best of this book, be a massive success. i love the subject and your thinking on it. let's start with you point out the three main arguments. i'd like to go through them

quickly. the founding conservatives saved the american revolution just as important as you said, but who were these conservatives first and why hasn't much until now been made of them? >> it's the remarkable story and the history of the american revolution is itself a fascinating subject that we go on and on about. they saved the american revolution in multiple ways. robert morris single handedly financed the army. without him the army would have grounded to a halt. you have james wilson and governor morris who wrote large parts of the united states constitution. these founding fathers are well known to historians but they have pretty much been totally left out of popular histories. >> i find fascinating you say we shouldn't be looking too much to briton, the united kingdom as the foundation for conservative thought and philosophy but

rather, you say that the first modern conservative was british statesman edmond burke. >> most histories trace the conservativism back to burke. i discovered that everything burke stood for and said was said a decade and a half earlier by the american founding 3 c1 conservatives. it struck me as strange and fascinating that conservative similar that is all about h heritage doesn't know its ownn har tank. >> the thinkers, the intellectuals, thomas jefferson, a conservative? >> he was far more radical. one of the most surprising things i discovered in the book is john adams was quite radical throughout the revolution. he changes his thinking toward the end of it. >> conservativism itself, give

us your view today of what statement its in. i have to tell you, i can't always recognize a conservative. >> i think these conservatives i write about offer two lessons. the first is that they compromise, they fought tooth and nail for this country, let me emphasize that. they fought tooth and nail for this country. they compromised for the good of the nation. they put patriotism before politics. they were facing a world of changing definite graphics. they were losing voters as free men from the lower classes and the middle classes, the right to vote. these conservatives started losing their vote. they had to offer one thing to get their vote. that was prosperity. they said we will bring free market capitalism to america. it will make the people strong and rich. >> these modern conservatives as we look around us, prosper us, brilliant, engaged?

>> conservatives face a similar tension today, how do you deal with the complaining lector at and stay relevant. >> we're going to see that answered. david lefer, the book is the founding conservatives. buy it. thanks for being with us. good night. >> announcer: the followg program is a paid advertisement for the food lovers fat loss system, brought to you by provida life sciences-- practical solutionfor better ling. >> i'm annette, i'm from studio city, california. i'm a mother of the, i weight 155-1/2 pounds. this is the heaviest i've ever been. i'm a size 10. ...and thiis me now! i lost 25 pounds and went at size 10 to this size 2 in just 12 wks. how did i do it? i became a food lover. >> i'm a food lover and i lost 36 poun. >>'m a food love d i've lost 50 pounds. >> i'm a food lover and i lost 60 pounds. >> i'm a food lover and i lo 82 pounds in eight months.