that we might live free. we are forever indebted to the heros whose unknown valor we are obligated to lou: good evening, everybody. it has been an historic day in washington where the u.s. supreme court today ruled on the trump administration's right to rescind former president obama's executive order on deferred action for childhood arrivals program or daca as it's more commonly known. it was created by president obama's 2012 executive order. his order provided temporary amnesty, work permits, other medical benefits to more than 700,000 illegal immigrants who were brought to the united states as children. in 5-4 ruling, the high court said that the trump

administration acted improperly by terminating the program in 2017. that is the last clear-cut statement from the majority opinion. the court's reasoning, tortured throughout, and these five justices appear confused as they often do when roberts, the chief justice, is the swing vote. for example, this ruling does not touch the merits of the program, meaning daca remains in place but it could end at the hand -- rather the pin of this or any other administration. president trump reacting on twitter. he said, quote, these horrible and politically charged decisions coming out of the supreme court are shotgun blasts into the face of people who are proud to call themselves republicans or conservatives. we need more of justices or we'll lose our second amendment and everything else.

vote trump, 2020. siding with the four liberal justices today was chief justice john robert as i said and this is the second time this week that he has sided in a ruling against the trump administration. in the majority opinion today, the chief justice wrote, quote, the dispute before the court is not whether dhs may rescind daca. get ready for this. all parties agree that it may. the dispute is instead primarily about the procedure, the procedure that the agency followed in doing so. well, the procedure chief justice roberts is referring to came in the form of a 2017 memorandum, written by former dhs acting deputy secretary elaine duke. her memo called the program illegal because it allows daca recipients to have benefits like social security and medicare.

and allows them to legally work in the united states despite their status. chief justice roberts in his opinion says the duke memo doesn't get into the heart of daca. his words. the legal protections against deport is a. and in his majority opinion, roberts concluded that dhs must somehow offer a better explanation if it is to reconsider rescinding daca, which everyone agrees that the department of homeland security has the power to do. the court, however, chose not to evaluate the merits of a subsequent memo from former dhs secretary kristin nielsen. in 2018 she elaborated on duke's reasoning to rescind the program and said in part, quote, if a policy concerning the ability of this class of aliens to remain in the united states is to be adopted it should be enacted

legislatively. trump appointed justice brett kavanaugh who wrote his own dissent to the court's ruling today. he explained the nielsen memo provided a reasonable explanation to end daca, saying this. the nielsen memorandum shows that the department back in 2018 considered the policy issues that the court or at least the majority of it today says the department did not consider. adding, quote, the only practical consequence of the court's decision to remand appears to be some delay. that delay cheered on by the globalist business groups like the business roundtable, the u.s. chamber of commerce, wall street, the radical dems an rhinos who have long fought to flood the american job market with low wage immigrant workers and the business roundtable said this today. we applaud today's supreme court

decision to protect the hundreds of thousands of daca recipients who play a vital role in our economy and our communities. the chamber of commerce, they had something to say and this what is they said. it is long past time for congress to provide permanent relief for dreamers. now, while the globalists and big business today made it very clear if there was any doubt in any one's mind just who owns the chief justice minority leader chuck schumer suffered something of an emotional meltdown over the ruling. >> i cried tears of joy a few minutes ago when i heard the decision of the supreme court on daca. these wonderful daca kids and their families have a huge burden lifted off their shoulders. they don't have to worry about being deported. lou:.wow, the decision's amazin. i am so happy.

lou: we're all relieved for schumer who looked on the verge of a breakdown there. there appeared to have never been any intention by president trump, however, to deport any one of the so-called dreamers. the trump administration not looking particularly good today, nor on the first day of oral arguments in the supreme court, when president trump tweeted this. president obama said he had no legal right to sign order but would anyway. if supreme court remedies would overturn a deal would be made with dems for them to stay. wow, that's encouraging, isn't it? the law in drive-by form. the white house move was to win some sort of leverage in order in order to force the radical dems in the house to make a move on immigration. how did that work out? not well at all. former attorney general jeff sessions in 2017 called it an orderly, lawful winddown of daca that left time for congress to

act. but as is customary, congress has done nothing. republicans and even members of the president's cabinet have yet to fully support his immigration position and agenda, not that they should, but one would think they would. the dems have called to abolish immigration and customs enforcement and they push an open borders agenda, so really everybody would be welcome if the left have their way and the business roundtable and of course the chamber of commerce. congress, it appears, is content to use immigration as a political issue as opposed to actually coming up with a solution. but maybe we should be thankful that that is their position. justice clarence thomas wrote the main dissent to today's ruling. he said the court's decision allows any administration to use executive action to essentially bind the following

administration to the laws that result from that executive action. thomas writes this. quote, even if the agency lacked authority to effectuate the changes, the changes cannot be undone by the same agency in a successor administration unless the successor provides sufficient policy justif just justifications to the satisfaction of the court, to the satisfaction of this court. in other words, he wrote, the majority erroneously holds that the agency is not only permitted but required to continue add medicinadministering unlawful ps that it inherited from a previous administration. justice thomas saying it straightforwardly and succinctly and clearly. the court is confused. it is contradictory. it is quickly becoming a laughing stock under justice roberts. the executive branch in the view

of those justices, at least the majority, can legislate by executive order. so long as the majority of the high court and the administration to a lesser degree in this case the obama administration are ideologically aligned. what they basically said today was to hell with the law and to hell with the constitution, we know better. also taking to twitter to clear up what robert ligh lighthizer t yesterday. >> i don't think it's a reasonable policy option at this point. i think you will see supply chains come back as a result of u.s. policy including the kinds of things that you all did in the tax bill but also with the regulatory space that the president has done, as well as the tariffs that we put in place. lou: the president clarifying

on twitter. he said this. quote, it was not ambassador lighthizer's fault yesterday in committee and perhaps i didn't make myself clear. but the u.s. certainly does maintain a policy option under various conditions of a complete decoupling from china. well, now we've got that straightened out. up next, john bolton continues to carry out acts of betrayal against his former boss, saying house dems should have done more during their sham impeachment investigation. jason chaffetz has a few thoughts about the former national security advisor and his betrayals. jason chaffetz joins me when we come back. please stay with us. save hundreds on your wireless bill

without even leaving your house. just keep your phone and switch to xfinity mobile. you can get it by ordering a free sim card online. once you activate, you'll only have to pay for the data you need- starting at just $15 a month. there are no term contracts, no activation fees, and no credit check on the first two lines. get a $50 prepaid card when you switch. it's the most reliable wireless network. and it could save you hundreds. xfinity mobile.

lou: former national security advisor john bolton's betrayal of the president he served goes on. today, the new york times reported in his new book, bolton claims the radical dems should have looked into the president's dealings with turkey and china during their sham impeachment inquiries. bolton alleged president trump tried to curry favor with turkish president erdogan and

chinese president xi by intervening in several investigations. it's only in paragraph 20 of a 21-page story that the times does report bolton doesn't know exactly what happened at those times, in those episodes, nor was he sure they were even -- well, offenses. but they still, he says, should have been investigated by house democrats. that's the level you could expect from this little literary masterpiece of john bolton's. here's white house press secretary kayleigh mcenany, her response today. >> what i would note is this book is full of classified information which is inexcusable. former national security advisor john bolton should know all too well that it's unacceptable to have highly classified information from the government of the united states in a book that will be published.

it's unacceptable. lou: unacceptable but it's ongoing. joining us now, former congressman, former chairman of the house oversight committee, jason chaffetz. also a fox news contributor. what do you make of john bolton and his encouragement of the sham impeachment inquiry to look into things that he doesn't even know about? jason: i'm terribly disappointed in john bolton. he was supposed to be the career professional who could come in there as an adult and be the national security adviser. i have to tell you, the antics and ranting and raving that he's doing in trying to publish this book to line his own pockets at the expense of national security, that's just not acceptable. and you know one thing i want them to go back and look at, lou? it's amazing how john bolton leaves and now we have the very competent robert o'brien as the national security advisor and guess what we don't have the

same type of leaking that we did when john bolton was the national security advisor. remember the calls going out the door, the information was flowing out to media sources, the new york times now has more bolton information. maybe we're looking at the source of those. it's at least something they should look at in terms of the leaking. lou: well, it's an excellent point. and bolton has a lot to answer for and the list gets longer every day. he is an extraordinary, extraordinarily disappointing, petty and vindictive person. it's just -- it's sad to see what perhaps he always was, but certainly what he has become. let's turn to the pompeo meeting. why are we being kept in the dark about what the chinese and the secretary of state are meeting about? this is annoying as hell as you might guess to someone who works in media. jason: well, i don't know

exactly what they're going to be talking about. i have a great deal of trust in secretary pompeo. there are a lot of high level talks that need to be happening. i've got to tell you, i don't like what was happening on capitol hill today. that did disturb me. but i think we need to see what the result of these pompeo meetings are. i think dialogue is good in general. i want there to be good, strong dialogue back and forth and we'll see what comes of it. lou: well, let's take a look at what was happening and part of it happening with the u.s. trade representative, robert lighthizer, who has been the lead in these negotiations. he and secretary mnuchin, with the chinese. he said that decoupling with the chinese is not a policy option for the trump administration. your reaction to that statement? >> well, that's not what the president campaigned on. it's not what he did for the three and-a-half years. the president took the very reasonable stance and said

what's fair with china is going to be fair with us. it's got to be fair. it's got to be reciprocal. and if they're not going to play fair, we're not going to allow you access to our of markets. i think that is a reasonable approach and something that he's taken a pretty good hard line and stance on to back off of that in some obscure hearing on of capitol hill sends the wrong message to the chinese, to the u.s. personnel and people like mr. pompeo. i don't know if this is planted or planned for by the president but it seems like mark meadows, maybe the chief of staff needs to have a discussion with mr. lighthizer and what happened on capitol hill. lou: well, it looks like, if he -- lighthizer has had a record of saying exactly what he means, the extension of what he said is the united states is no longer a sovereign nation. we're incapable of making a decision who we do business with. we will not be holding anyone accountable for the death of 100,00100,000 americans, the inn

of 2 million more. we might as well surrender to the chinese. and i am not -- i hope you understand, indulging in hyperbole here. this is devastating to the base, what was said by lighthizer on capitol hill today. >> it was. it was totally foreign to the policy and the position and part of the reason a lot of people voted for donald trump in the first place. so we'll see where it goes from here. i mean, i was reading stories today about some illicit cash, some forged one dollar bills that were flooding into our markets. again, the source being the chinese. we'll see if that plays out and if that is true. the secret service is working on that as well. so add that to the ongoing and long, long list of things and issues and problems and challenges we have with the chinese. we should take a tougher stance

and negotiate our right position, not just lay down and die in front of the united states congress and say oh, well. lou: it seems to be exactly that, jason. let's hope that you and i are both wrong about that. we're going to have to believe our lying eyes and ears to this point. jason, thanks so much. good to have you with us. up next, the american people aren't buying into the radical leftist plans to defund police departments. bob woodson is the former head of the national urban league's department of criminal justice, he joins us here next. you don't want to miss a word this man says. i'm a performer. -always have been. -and always will be. never letting anything get in my way. not the doubts, distractions, or voice in my head. and certainly not arthritis. new voltaren provides powerful arthritis pain relief

to help me keep moving. and it can help you too. feel the joy of movement with voltaren.

lou: if ever there were a time to worry about this nation and our direction, it appears that this is one of those times. seattle mayor jenny durkin says the seattle police department will not enter the zone styled

as capitol hill organized protests or chop, except in the event of a, quote, significant life safety issue, whatever that is. the police define a life safety issue as an active shooter, an assault, structure fire or significant medical emergency like a heart attack, or stroke. end quote. since the radical left has taken over the city blocks, police response time has more than tripled in the precinct, including the so-called chop. so not much of what she is saying has much relevance. the radical left has been leading the charge for weeks to defund the police department. the message not catching on with the american people, for some reason. according to a politico morning consult poll by a 2-1 margin, american voters oppose defunding of the police department.

57% to 29%. 43% say they're strongly opposed to that so-called movement. not much of a of movement. joining us now is bob woodson, former civil rights activist, the founder of the woodson center which helps residents of low income neighborhoods and, bob, we're delighted to have you with us to talk about all that's going on. first, your reaction if we may to this organized protest as they're now styling it in seattle, the left wing activist groups. your thoughts about the way the city's handling it, the governor handling it as well. bob: well, it's really organized aorganized anarchy. this is part of a long struggle that goes back 60 years where low income blacks are america's silent victims and they have been victimized and, employeded by the left -- and exploited by

the left. using the legitimate concerns about racial discrimination in america as the battering ram and they use the mystery of the low income black as the bait and the switch occurs when the resources arrive. so what is happening is that they have -- for instance, one of the demands of black lives matter in seattle is that all violent offenders, black offenders get a retrial. what they're advocating is distracting the very people they say they're trying to help. there's a close correlation between police with drawing from the communities when they're covering the riots, that means there's fewer police to protect people. and since the police are being accused of being racist, they are reluctant to enforce the laws in low income, high crime areas as vigorously as they

would at other times. for instance, st. louis last summer 14 young people under the age of 14 were killed within three months and only one arrest made. they call it the ferguson effect. and so the more police withdraw, the higher the murder rate goes up in the black community. so the black community, low income blacks are being injured by the helping hands of those who are supposed to be their champions. and that's what's harming the most. lou: is it going too far to say that those are the -- i'm sorry. go ahead, bob. bob: go ahead, lou. lou: is it going too far to say that the black community, the poorest among them in our inner cities are being exploited by the democratic activists for purposes that don't include their own safety and welfare? bob: it is coming at the expense.

it's like people being paid to solve a problem that they helped create. one of the things that was the strength of the black man, when slavery ended in 1865 there was a study done by scholars that documented that 75% of those slaves on the plantations, had a man and a woman raising children and that solid black family continued for another 100 years through virulent racism and discrimination and up until 1965, 85% of all black families had a man and woman raising children. in the 10 years of the depression, from 1930 to 1940, black americans had a higher marriage rate than any other group in the nation. elderly people could walk safely without fear of being mugged by their grandchildren. that's because of the christian values and nuclear family. that was destroyed in 1965 with

the poverty program. we went from 85% of families down to 30%, lou. the welfare system did more destruction to black america than anything that discrimination did. so for them to say that the problems of inequity in these cities are attributed to institutional racism is being -- so race is being used to -- as a ruse. it prevents us from asking more critical questions such as if racism were the culprit, then why are blacks failing in systems run by their own people? lou: with that, we're out of time, bob. but i would like to make an offer to you. i'd like to take up these issues as frequently as we can have you on this broadcast. i'd like to give you a portion of it every week for us to talk

about solutions and we would be delighted if you would consider that offer. bob woodson, thank you. bob: i'm excited beyond means, lou. just flattered. lou: we're appreciative beyond means. thanks so much, bob. good to have you with us. we'll be right back. you ever wish you weren't a motaur? sure. sometimes i wish i had legs like you. yeah, like a regular person. no. still half bike/half man, just the opposite. oh, so the legs on the bottom and motorcycle on the top? yeah. yeah, i could see that. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

lou: joining us now, victor davis hanson, senior fellow of the military history department

at the hoover institution, professor emeritus of classics, best selling author, national review contributor and great american. victor, great to have you with us. victor, i want to start where we left off. and that is with the generals, whether it is milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, whether it's the defense secretary. these people are talking as if they're running an hr department rather than the united states army and the united states military. it's deeply troubling. and as you pointed out, they were extremely unspecific in talking about the president is violating the constitution. that's pure bunkham and they have to know it and that means they're lying. your reaction when they say -- i mean, they are spewing nonsense here. >> yeah. i mean, most of them are retired. but what it -- give an example

of barack obama. he fired five four star generals. he fired general cartwright, general mattis, general flynn, he fired general crystal. he did violate the constitution in some sense when he refused a congressional subpoena. we uponized the irs to punish political enemies. he siced the doj and cia on a political campaign. none of the people who were fired stood up and said this is terrible and it's nazi-like. they didn't call him mussolini. they obeyed by the code of military conduct that said retired officers should not di disparage a sitting president. he was not convicted after the crazy impeachment. they can't cite any constitutional transgression and

yet they're all coming out and the result of it is, lou, it looks highly partisan and it's really reduced the status of the retired military. these were the most iconic, decorated officers and it's a bad precedent because as i'm speaking, there's six or seven articles in major journals that are talking about the possibility of a coup. i'm 66. i never heard of that before. and when you have these people of this stature and they say things and write things that they do and it's not even behavior from administration, then it's quite scary. even the chairman of the joint chiefs said he couldn't do a photo op. if i were to show you all the pictures of decorated officers standing next to a president during a controversial decision, am i supposed to believe that hasn't happened before? so general -- they're all trying to adopt or adjudicate their views according to a sense

census that donald trump is somehow unpopular. it's not based on constitutional principles. if it was, they would say donald trump did this. and they haven't done that because they can't. because 12 or 13 presidents have called in federal troops to restore order. lou: right. and it's preposterous what they're claiming. they certainly must know that. and they also are speaking in unison. by the way, doing it at once, doing it from the same page as civilian politicians of the left. it is certainly not a coincidence that they have chosen this moment, this time to speak out against the president. now, a number of them have been against this president from the very beginning. but who cares what a retired military officer is. and as you point out, the military code says straightforwardly, retired officers are to keep their

mouths shut. >> well, they're subject to the code, yes. and section 82 says that. but it doesn't matter what you or i say, lou. it's what joe biden says. because he's already come out and bragged that the four former chairmen of the joint chief skinned alive donald trump and then he went further and said trump will cheat on the election and he will lose. and i'm going to -- he used the word, and, the conjunction, i'm going to call on they, they being the joint chiefs and active military officers and they will get him out of the white house by dispatch. so the impression that they're conveying to a presidential candidate is that they're going to be activated to somehow be at the beck and call of joe biden's theory that trump didn't play fair. what if trump wins the election? what if he wins the election and joe biden says he cheated.

lou: he's going to win. >> and he won't leave the white house. is he going to call on the generals, as he claims he is. lou: of course he is. >> it leaves him open to misinterpretation. lou: what about china and russia and their people and they're watching this, what kind of aid and comfort are these generals giving the russians and the chinese, the iranians for that matter, they are -- they are absolutely undercutting the president of the united states in favor of the enemies of the united states. >> oh, well, they know that. and therefore during the psychological process, they have claimed that donald trump is undermining. i think mullen said that. , they said trump is making us look bad and it necessitates their intervention in criticizing him. we know the united states is famous for one thing, of our

civilian and military distance and that the military obeys the president, he's the commander in chief. and they don't pick and choose when they think that they should or should not follow an order. because they haven't been elected. i don't know where they got this idea but the intelligence and the military were not elected anything. they have not -- donald trump was elected. so they don't have the prerogative whether we move or to disparage an elected commander in chief, according to their own statutes that they've sworn loyalty to. lou: we've got to wrap it here. come back soon and let's continue this conversation because it's critically important to the nation and also as you say, they're conveying to the american people that mark esper, the defense secretary, works for milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and his friends who retired. we'll be right back with much more and thanks to victor davis

hanson. he'll be joining us one of these evenings soon. we'll be right back.

lou: a new report from the senscenter for immigration studs finds that although there was some improvement in may for unemployed americans, the number of unemployed native-born

americans remains extremely high and that, quote, it is extremely difficult to justify the continued entry of new immigrants on the grounds of a labor shortage. we're talking about 40 million people not working. according to the cis research, the unemployment rate for native born americans is more than three times what it was before the chinese pandemic virus hit. the number is at levels three times higher than in february. another study done last week found that between 2000 and 2014, immigrants, both legal and illegal, who held a job, increased by 5.7 million. the number of native-born americans holding a job declined in the same period by nearly 130,000. from 2000 to 2014, 17 million immigrants arrived in the united states, working age, native-born

americans declined from 74% in 2000 to 71 71% to 66% in 2014. despite the evidence and the empirical evidence this represents, the globalists elites, the chamber of commerce, the business roundtable, americans for prosperity and as well wall street itself continue to clamor for an increase in foreign workers. all at the expense of, yes, the american working man and woman and their families. social media has a clear-cut bias against conservatives. conservatives have long complained about their blatant bias, whether on the part of twitter, facebook, google, in an astonishing development yesterday an activist group linked to the u.k.'s left wing labor party was partly responsible for google threatening to block ads or zero

hedge and the federalist. nbc reported as it turns outer reason justly a -- erroneously a story in which it claimed google banned the ads over policy vie stations found in the comments sections in stories about recent black lives matter protests. nbc says the policy violations were compiled by the center for countering digital aid and shared with google. the federalist ads, however, have not been blacklisted, nor banned by google. they have been warned of a possible suspension by google of those ads because of the policy violations they say in its comments section. google effectively now in control of a substantial portion of the federalist content and its revenue. that's only one example of big tech's giant and ever-growing power. it is obvious that big tech and silicon valley intend to exert even more of that power over

americans' first amendment rights and not less. james baker, the former fbi general counsel involved in many ways and levels with the deep state's efforts to overthrow the president has been hired by twitter to act as their deputy general counsel. this is the same man who helped craft a fisa warrant to spy on the trump campaign. who will now be involved in defending twitter's decisions to, quote, censor and fact check the very same president. facebook's ceo, mark zuckerberg, says his social media plans to get 4 million people to register to vote this year, zuckerberg also defended facebook's decision not to fact check political ads, saying the best way to hold politicians accountable is through voting. up next, a target robert mueller's investigation says president trump was targeted because they wanted to fix

president obama's failed foreign policy and investigative journalist john solomon joins us, we'll be taking that up right after these quick messages. please stay with us. where will you go first? wherever you may go, lexus will welcome you back with exceptional offers on exceptional vehicles. get zero percent financing and make no payments for up to 90 days on all 2020 lexus models. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

experience amazing car vending machines and buying a car 100% online.vented now we've created a brand new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a year old or a few years old, we want to buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate, answer a few questions,

and our techno-wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot, and pick up your car. that's it. so ditch the old way of selling your car, and say hello to the new way-- at carvana. lou: foreign policy analyst and fox business contributor dr. walleed ferris says the

obama administration stride to overthrow president trump in order to save the iranian nuclear deal and save the support for the muslim brotherhood in egypt. president obama thought it would be a grand idea if he could send a couple emissaries, in this case two republicans to cairo, to sort of explain why there should be 10% of the new cc government that would be muslim brotherhood. didn't work out too well. ferris told john solomon that he was interviewed by mueller's special counsel after being accused of accepting money and working as an unregistered lobbyist for the egyptians. solomon reports those allegations were in rod rosenstein's scope memo. joining us tonight is john solomon, award winning investigative journalist, editor in chief of justthenews.com.

good to have you with us. ferris is the mystery fifth person to be targeted by the special counsel in addition to flynn. your thoughts? and i know you're doing extensive reporting on this. john: yeah, absolutely. well, for a while it's been a mystery who was the fifth person. we knew about george papadopoulos and carter page and mike flynn and paul manafort and we knew there was a redacted section of the memo where another person was identify. we confirmed it was dr. ferris. what's interesting about it is that the referral predominantly deals with something unrelated to russia. it was about egypt, about a policy dispute. where the similarities begin is the allegations turned out to be as frivolous as most of the things in the steele dossier. dr. ferris gets to go through this entire process for an extraordinary amount of inaccurate information. what the most -- he said this

looks like -- the russia case looks like an effort to sideline the foreign policy advisors of president trump so he would be handicapped in foreign policy when he begins. he believed one of the things they were trying to do was preserve the iran nuclear deal. president trump was clear he was going to throw that deal out when he became president. when mike flynn and all these others get sidelined, it slows the president down in getting to his foreign policy agenda. lou: it also brings into play another connection and that is the efforts of the obama administration to send john mccain, lindsey graham, to egypt to insist that the cc government accept the muslim brotherhood in the new government that cc, the new president, was forming. and here they go again. also, john mccain implicated

for his role in getting that dossier to the fbi. your thoughts? >> well, listen, i think that there's a period of foreign policy that we're all going to take a look back in a few years and realize how flawed it was, libya, iran, the arab spring, egypt allowing the muslim brotherhood to temporarily take control of the country and those occurred under barack obama, joe biden and hillary clinton's watch. we're still trying to repair the damage from that. there's one of -- the iran deal had an enormous benefit to russia. as soon as iran got the money and got the sanctions lifted, what did it do? it bought hundreds of millions of dollars of russian military equipment. vladimir putin got a check in the frank the iran deal. -- in the bank from the iran deal. take a look at what happened after the iran deal was consummated by barack obama.

lou: that's fascinating. and we've got about a minute left. i want to turn to bolton's new book. your reaction to it and his obvious betrayal of the president he worked for. john: there's a lot of issues, classified information, you're not supposed to talk about conversation the president had with world leaders because they're classified at the outset. john bolton, i did a lot of work as an associated press disaster on the wmd disaster. john bolton was at the center of that, taking a few threads of fact and trying to weave into a theory there was wmd in iraq. that turned out to be wrong. i think this book falls the way of the wmd tale when we're all done. lou: john solomon, justthenews.com, we recommend it to you. and john highly as well. that's it for us tonight. we can't wait for the return of prosperity. tom fiten and the wall street

journal's bob davis, pastor robert jeffers among our guests tomorrow. we hope you'll be with us. see you tomorrow. ♪ ♪ pete: samaria, the west bank, the physical holy land for jews, christians and muslims. across all checkpoints and borders, occupation, liberation or land grabs? the truth depends on where you sit, who you listen to and the fact of the ground.