day. i hope they are wrong. hope they lose tomorrow. juan: "the o'reilly factor" is on. >> olympic games in chicago would be a restoration of what the united states is all about. juan: president obama's big push to win the olympics for chicago fails. ♪ chicago. juan: even as he makes apologies for america abroad. >> over the last several years sometimes that fundamental truth about the united states has been lost. juan: karl rove on that. bill: he can't possibly include illegal aliens in his health care bill. millions and millions of hispanics screaming out what? you promised us immigration reform.

juan: hispanic activists demanding health care for illegals. we will debate it. >> your business is a performing artist. stop saying prostitute. juan: and california launches an investigation into corruption at acorn. as well as the young filmmaker who exposed the problem. juan: caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone. the factor begins right now. [captioning made possible by fox news channel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- juan: hi, i'm juan williams in for bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. our top story, blame it on rio. the united states lost its bid for the olympic games to rio degentleman narrow. this is seen as a defeat for the president obama and his administration. he made it a personal effort to woo the olympics for chicago. unprecedented move president obama flew to copen hague ton make his case personally to the

olympic committee, but the president also seemed to take a shot at the u.s. and previous administration while he was overseas. >> we are putting the full force of the white house and the state department to make sure that not only is this a successful games but that visitors from all around the world feel welcome and i think that over the last several years sometimes that fundamental truth about the united states has been lost. one the legacies i think of this olympic games in chicago would be a restoration of that understanding of what the united states is all about. and the united states' recognition of how we are linked to the world. juan: joining us now to san diego fox news political analyst karl rove. karl, thanks for coming. in let me just quickly ask you, karl. he gets rejected on on the same day that he was there making the pitch and i mean, it's not only

that he was rejected. chicago was out in the first round. not even close, karl. is this a humiliation for the president? >> absolutely. he got exactly what he deserved by personalizing this by raising the profile -- by raising his profile in this and by making this such a specific personal ask. his remarks to the committee are incredible not only the bite that you read but he also said he referred to his own election. nearly one year ago on a clear november night people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of chicago in front of their televisions to watch the results of the presidential election. their interest wasn't about me as an individual. whenever anybody says this is not about me. they mean it's all about me. he said, you know, this is a defining moment. we have a responsibility to help lead an effort to forge new partnerships with the nations of the world. is he making this all about himself. if you have got a guy going around apologizing for the united states and saying "we're bad we have been wrong and we're terrible. i will make it better. you are inviting people particularly in the process as

heavily influenced by a wide variety of nations as this one, to have them kick the united states. that's exactly what happened. juan: what would you have said if he had won, karl? >> i would say it would be a dramatic personal victory for him. i would have -- if i were in the white house over the last couple of weeks. and any president was saying to me should i be going to make the personal pitch fort yates to get an olympic game, i would have said, mr. president, that is fraught with peril. you are going to hurt more than help the effort of the united states to do. so don't make it but and don't make it about the prestige of the white house. juan: karl, let me ask you something, are you, karl rove, and the republicans at rift here of celebrating a defeat fort yates? obviously the president went over there what you heard from david axelrod his karl rove he was promoting the united states of america and an opportunity to celebrate american virtue and value to the world by having the olympics take place in chicago. >> look, i want the olympics to be in the united states of america. the question is how do you get them? if you go over there and say it's all about me do this

because america has been bad and i have now been elected and i will make certain everything is right in the future, this will be a great reward for me. look, we are not the only people in the world. the rest of the world, particularly those committee members have been reading the news clips for months in which the obama white house has been saying would this be a great cap stone for a second term to end barack obama second term in the white house to have the olympics in his hometown in 2016 what a wonderful political victory this will be. we are not the only people in the world reading that kind of stuff. do you think the people around the world want to sigh oh great we want to reward president obama by giving him the olympics because of he think it's going to be a great cap stone to his time in office? that's the wrong way to appeal for his time in the olympics. i understand the white house felt strongly about. this they made a fundamental mistake. if they wanted the olympics to come to the united states they should have made it about america not obama. things other than cap stone to

his time in the white house. should have made it less perm and more about the country as a whole. juan: karl, let me help you out because i want to advance your argument. while he is overseas we get the unemployment rate skyrockets to 9.5%. this is the highest in years. people say he was distracted while he was off making the pitch for his hometown we got this going home at home. it seems damaging to his credibility for the people that have to vote for him in 2012. am i right? >> you are right. i have been monitoring this. the unemployment rate is not the key impact on president obama's job approval. but his handling of the economy is. so, if people think he is disengaged. if they think the answers that he has provided like the stimulus where he overpromised and under delivered. that's really damaging to him. if you take a look at the job approval line for obama this year, it matches the approval for his handling the economy,

which is even worse. remember, we had 263,000 jobs last -- lost last month. far more than were expected. interestingly enough, 64,000 were in construction and 51,000 were in manufacturing. and that's what we have been promised for, you know, since february. we are going to be the areas in which we were going to have you know, job growth because of the stimulus. it's not working. it was a poorly designed stimulus. they have only spent about less than 14% of the money. you know, president obama said he was going to have 3.5 million new jobs by the end of next year. he is now 4.6 million below that number. he has got to generate 4.6 million jobs to get to his self-described goal. juan: hold on, karl. wait a minute. i'm not meaning to pick on you here. karl, upper in the white house and you didn't set things up too well. you didn't see the banking crisis coming. you didn't see the credit crisis coming. >> yes, we did, juan. yes, we did, juan. juan: you didn't do anything about it, did you. >> we started in 2001 to try to reign in fannie and freddie.

we spent four years doing it we got a bill through the senate finance committee on a party line vote to reign in fannie and fred if i can in 2006. one of the first things barack obama did when he came to the united states senate was because third largest recipient of fannie and freddie. he joined a filibuster of every democrat led by senator chris dodd to block that measure from being brought to the floor of the united states senate. three years later in september of 2008. senator obama voted for the same bill that he could have voted for three years ago after fannie and freddie collapsed. don't tell me that we didn't try to do something in the bush years to reign in the housing problem. we were the people who said let us subject fannie and freddie to the same kind of scrutiny we subject banks, savings and loans and credit unions. it was candidate obama, senator obama who refused to join that effort that would have kept this from being the accelerant that it was for a worldwide crisis. juan: barack obama is pointing the fingers at you and president bush and here you are pointing fingers at president obama. i don't see anybody looking out for people though are having

their homes foreclosed on. >> i'm trying to correct a misstatement. you said we didn't do anything to do anything about it i'm correcting you. president obama is the one who constantly points the finger at president bush for everything. juan: you point the finger at him. >> people are sick of it they want to know what he is going to do. juan: if you saw it coming, how's come it hit us like a meteor. >> because fannie and freddie as bad as we thought they were, they were even worse. between 19 8 and 2000, fannie and freddie, these government-sponsored enterprises bought roughly $2 trillion worth of mortgage paper. between 2001 and 2005, when we tried to regulate them, they had a trillion dollars. juan: karl, we're coming back to you. >> $1.4 trillion. juan: year north cutting you off. karl is going to weigh in on the iran nuclear talks and president obama's big meeting with general mcchrystal. also, the state of california zeros in on acorn as well as the

filmmakers who exposed acorn's pr

>> in the impact segment tonight, we continue now with karl rove and turn to nuclear talks between the united states and iran yesterday. president obama offered some cautious optimism. >> this is a constructive beginning but hard work lies ahead. we have entered a phase of intensive international negotiations. and talk is no substitute for action. pledges of cooperation must be fulfilled. we have made it clear that we will do our part to engage the iranian government on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect. but our patience is not unlimited. juan: bill o'reilly is in london where he tells us the press appears to be hagel these talks as a huge success for president obama and british prime minister brown. karl rove, do you see it that way? >> i think the president was

right to be cautious. remember, what we have here is they have agreed to inspections of this new facility, which is according to press reports been known by the government since 2006. we have had inspections of their previous facilities and those inspections have not led to them stopping the centrifuges and stopping to create materials. i think the president was right to be cautious there. he is also right to be cautious about the other part of this, which is they will now take their low grade uranium and ship it to either france and russia in all likelihood to have it made into higher grade uranium to be used in their research facility. theoretically outsourcing the enrichment of their uranium would mean that they could shut down these facilities that would otherwise be used, we fear would be used to create material for nuclear weapons. but we didn't hear the iranians say yesterday now that we have come to this agreement that we are going to send this material to be outsourced that we no longer need all thiessen tri fugitives. we didn't hear that i think the president was right. what the administration, and being cautious. the administration has

heretofore said that december is the deadline. we either have to have significant progress aimed at ending that's programs or something bad is going to happen. i think iran may have wanted to take the air out of the sanctions effort that been growing in the last couple of weeks. juan: karl, isn't this just buying them times. here is karl rove supporting president obama. i have got to till the folks aren't with you on this. let me read the poll numbers on this. let me just tell you, this karl. 69% of americans in a fox news opinion dynamics poll say we're not tough enough with iran. in fact, 59% say force is necessary. 61%, the u.s. military taking action to keep iran right now from getting nukes. so you are going soft, karl? >> no, i'm not. but, look, the president made a mistake by having these talks. they gay respectability to the iranian regime and have caused, i suspect, our partners, particularly france and britain which were particularly stuff on this to step back on the tough language on sanctions.

now we have to go through the dance to see if works out today and tomorrow. what happens in the review of the next two weeks of inspection of that. and the next meeting. and the next meeting the question is the president going to be tough and say look beings, you have now theoretically removed the reason to have those centrifuges operating at all. shut them down or face serious sanctions. i'm agreeing with what the president is caution. i'm not agreeing with the president's optimism. i think we were had yesterday. i hope i'm wrong i think what we're likely to see by the end of the year the iranians have not given up the program and the hair has gone out -- air has gone out to put serious sanctions bawn. juan: in these polls the american people want action now. the idea that israel is going to wait until december, giving the iranians more time to get their nuclear weapons in shape to rain on israel, i'm wondering if -- are the iranians really going to just disappoint the whole world?

is israel going to wait? >> well, juan, i actually do pay attention to what you say and i heard those poll numbers. i'm just saying that we are in a pattern here where the next two weeks it's going to be impossible for the united states government to do anything because it got committed to a path and it's got to follow that path until the next meeting. so the united states is stuck. you are right. the israelis are not necessarily stuck. and the question is would they launch an effort in this interim when they might lose international support that could say well, jeez, we have committed this and -- right process? look, my point is we are now stuck. and we're stuck and therefore the world gets stuck. juan: let's shift to afghanistan. in afghanistan the president met with general mcchrystal on air force one. the question is, does he agree to send more troops? and if he agrees to send more troops right now, karl, what do you say if general mcchrystal back in three months and says, hey, i need 50,000 more troops do. we keep giving him troops and more troops?

>> we do what is necessary to do what the president said in march, which is to win in afghanistan. we cannot allow a failed state to exist in this region. we did so in the 1990s. and tens of thousands of people pass through terrorist training camps and now r. now spread across the world as avowed enemies of the united states of america. i have been critical of the president for not being more involved and engaged in this. i mean i'm glad he met with mcchrystal yesterday. let's not kid ourselves. 25 minutes on air force one was about time to say hey, how are you? let me introduce your wife to my wife and let's have a few minutes here while we talk so my press secretary can go back and do some damage control. juan: karl, you are there for eight years. you guys were on the ground fighting this war in afghanistan. i didn't see any results. do we have a safer country in afghanistan? >> juan, no results? we tossed out the taliban. we put in place a democracy, not a very perfect one but a democracy nonetheless.

the country was a lot more stable three years ago than it is today. the reason is because three years ago we -- those people were coarsing into iraq where they thought they could win a victory. when the tide turned in iraq they had to flee some place, many of them fled to the pakistani tribal regions and once again a problem in afghanistan. juan, please your revisionism on history i need to get you a steady diet on good read, you are missing what happened in history. we got a lot done in afghanistan. juan: hang in there. karl, thanks. still to come on the factor, acorn and the filmmakers who brought their problems to light now in the crosshairs of the california attorney general. we're going to have the details when the factor returns.

>> in the unresolved problem segment tonight, acorn now in the crosshairs of the california attorney general's office. governor schwarzenegger asked the a.g. to investigate acorn after those embarrassing undercover tapes showing some acorn workers helping undercover filmmakers who were posing as a pimp and a prostitute. but the attorney general also says he will be investigating the filmmakers too. joining us now from northern california, former prosecutor steven clark, who is now a defense attorney. mr. clark. jerry brown on s. on this case. jerry brown is an old line liberal. he is the kind of guy that i would think would be aligned with acorn. so this for real or this for show. >> i think this is for real, juan. what this shows is a pervasive problem across the united states and for jerry brown to jump in on this, with his political base looking on, i think it speaks

volumes to the problem that acorn is presenting across the united states, those videotapes are shocking. they are reprehensible and the public demands to know what is acorn doing with our tax collars dollars. that's what attorney general brown is going to want to look at. look at their books and records to find out are they taking money by false pretenses in what they are doing out in the field? juan: this could go on forever. what's the time time frame? is this actually going to come to something in short order or kind of just peter out and ten years from now i'm talking to you and you say hey, nothing ever came to that? >> no. i think the attorney general has to act quickly. he has got to get these books and records and make a decision here. these videotapes are a road map to what's going on in the field at acorps. is he going to look at that and make a decision who should be prosecuted. what is acorn doing with the money. are they going to take charters away. you will see rules in six to

nine months. juan: the part of this that real solid puzzling to me has to do with the two young people ohio think should be hailed for good journalism going in there wir w. their cameras. but i'm told now that jerry brown, i don't know if this is, you know, showing that he is supposed to be even handed and pleasing his liberal base as he is thinking about a run for governor here. he is going after the young people. he says he is going to prosecute them because apparently taping people who haven't given their permission in california is illegal. so, how real is this threat? could those young people end up in jail? >> they could be. they could be put in jail if jerry brown brings a case against him for unlawful videotaping. they videotaped in a public office. one that i paid for with my tax dollars. that's different than in their homes. so i think that jerry brown will look at that he may not be able to use these videotapes. but i don't think he will prosecute them because the bigger crime here is what's going on with our tax dollars. what's going on in the acorn field offices with all of the

solicitation of prostitution and the things that you see on those videotapes. what i hope the attorney general will do is immunize these two filmmakers for their heroic efforts and put them on the witness stand so at least they can testify as to what's going on out there. i doubt you will see them prosecuted. i hope they look carefully at what they were doing before they did it they put themselves in harm's way here because of the bigger problem that they saw with acorn. >> explain to me, they are now going to be investigated by jerry brown. not prosecuted by jerry brown. soorks what is he looking for? >> well, under california law, you are not allowed to videotape someone in a private confidential communication. there are circumstances where that can be done. if it's a public forum, and if there is a solicitation of a crime, things like that. but it may be a difficult position for the filmmakers, they put themselves in harm's way. that's still up to jerry brown to decide is that who we want to prosecute here or do we want to go after the big fish, the big problem here which is what you

see on those tapes. not just in california but across the united states. what is acorn doing with our tax dollars. that's a question that is a legitimate government question. >> i'm glad you claim this, steve. here in california our biggest state takes down acorn does that mean that's it? curtains for acorn nationwide? >> i think you have got a great point there, juan. this is why. it's not so much california but look at who is doing it. this is jerry brown, a liberal democrat who probably benefitted in some ways from the acorn proposals and registration and things like that. he has always been an advocate for that this has become such a problem. and their political base is see evan tore rating what jerry brown is doing now sends a message to acorn that your days are over. juan: the question is the prosecutors nationwide pick up on whatever happens in california or is it likely that acorn is also going to face contemporaneous challenges from other states? or is everyone just going to

wait to see what happens in california? >> well, i think you will see something across the board now that attorney general brown has stepped in on this situation. he will share his investigation with those other attorney generals to see what is going on. they need to really investigate, what are they doing with our tax dollars? what do the books and records show? they are supposed to be a community group. they are not supposed to be soliciting or criminal behavior. juan: i couldn't agree with you more. thank you, mr. clark, thank you for joining us tonight. plenty more ahead as the factor moves along. illegal immigration is at the center of health care debate as activists try to kill a program that identifies hot illegals are. we have a debate. plus as sarah palin's book rockets to number one on amazon.com, bill takes on the editors of the "new york times" book review. we hope you stay tuned for those reports. most for headaches.

for arthritis pain... in your hands... knees... and back. for little bodies with fevers.. and big bodies on high blood pressure medicine. tylenol works with your body... in a way other pain relievers don't... so you feel better... knowing doctors recommend tylenol... more than any other brand of pain reliever.

boon motorcycle insurance, rv,at geiccamper, boat insurance. nice work, everyone. exec: well, it's easy for him. he's a cute little lizard. gecko: ah, gecko, actually - exec: with all due respect, if i was tiny and green and had a british accent i'd have more folks paying attention to me too... i mean - (faux english accent) "save money! pip pip cheerio!" exec 2: british? i thought you were australian. gecko: well, it's funny you should ask. 'cause actually, i'm from - anncr: geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

juan: in the second unresolved problem segment tonight, health care reform and illegal immigration. immigration activists are calling for health care coverage for all immigrants whether they are here illegally or not. this comes as the congressional hispanic caucus is calling on the white house to pull the plug on a program that identifies who is here illegally. joining us now from washington dr. james carafano, a senior fellow at the heritage foundation. and from boston, susan church, an immigration attorney. ms. church, let me begin with you. why shouldn't the local police turn in folks who are breaking the law illegal immigrants? >> i don't think that's really the question. i think the question is whether the local police should be spending their time trying to navigate the complicated and difficult legal field of immigration law to figure out who is here legally. who is here illegally. who has papers and applications pending. who does not? who has a silent status.

lawyers and judges spend hours. i spend every day of my life basically monday through friday trying to find out what somebody's legal status is right to stay in the country. >> hold on. >> why should the police be doing that? >> i'm going to ask a question. i think it's a good question and here is why. what you get from the hispanic caucus is they want the white house to undue this part of the law that trains the police in how to pick out folks who are here illegally and then turn them over to the authorities who can then make the determination. all they have to do is act legally as police trying to find people who are breaking the law. you are telling me the police shouldn't even do that. >> no. what i'm saying is that immigration law is historically and in the constitution a federal function. what local police should not be doing is spending their time with people who have been driving without a license, spending time on the phone with immigration. i had one particular client detained by fine hours by the local police as they try to sort out this guy's immigration status.

he had a green card but there were some problems with it. it is extremely time consuming to do this. instead of working with communities to try to fight violent crime, they instill a complete sense of fear. the local police need to be friendly with people in the immigrant community. our cities are 65% -- no, this is important. 65% immigrant. if you have victims of crimes who are too afraid to come forward because the local police are pseudo immigration officers, you will see crime in the city goes up dramatically. they require domestic violence cases to come forward. juan: what do you think about this argument? you hear from ms. church you know what? the police need immigrants to talk to them, to give them tips about crime being committed elsewhere so they can't go after illegal immigrants for breaking the law and coming into this country without documentation. >> i actually completely agree with everything she said. but that is exactly, exactly why

these programs were created. these programs were not created to have state and local law enforcement go out and enforce immigration law. what they were designed to do was to create partnerships between state and local law enforcement and the federal government and where they have a common interest in looking at a certain area of crime, whether it was counter terrorism or gang violence or something else, they could build a program where they could cooperate and share information and not have the state and local guys inefficiently going out and going after -- trying to enforce immigration law. in many places where these programs are done correctly, when they do these programs, the mart like in florida, for example where they use it specifically for counter terrorism immigrations not to check on somebody's legal status. they go out and have meetings with the stake holder communities to explain how to do this and actually in florida where they first instituted this program in north florida. they got enormous support from the immigration community because they explained what

they're doing. a lot of times what they're doing is combatting the crimes that victimize immigrants both legal and illegal. juan: this is a law that the hispanic caucus wants undone. what you just heard was it's an opportunity for the police to build knowledge about how to develop rips with folks and sometimes even to prevent crimes against immigrants. >> well, you know what? i see this every day. this is my job. every day i deal with clients who are in the police station for half an hour, 45 minutes. a local police officer says um, something might be wrong with this person's status. they call immigration on them. that's how this program is working in relation. we have a young man right now who is a college graduate and been in this country for seven years. worked at a banking company and even got a stock broker's license. he was in the police station because one of his friends was disorderly. they picked him up because when he was in college he was ecstasy charge.

he has lost his job. that's how the police are send 'king their time. they are not spending their time. let me finish my point. juan: wait a second. that's not what the law says. >> that's what the law does. juan: what the law does. >> that's what the law does. onquan i will give mr. carafano the chance. go ahead carafano, respond to this. >> what she just described is a good example of bad policing. that is precisely what this law does not do. when you sign these cooperative agreements to participate in these programs, the officers that have to go through it have to meet certain criteria in terms of the experience and education that this have. to have to go through various training. they can only supervise these employees. what she is describing is not this program this program is designed not to do those things. >> fair and balanced. ms. comurch how are you going to respond. >> in this case had to boy

tenelly identify this immigrant. that's what i am seeing over and over again in the obama administration. and the program. you just heard him mr. carafano say that was bad policing. that could be like a cop who was acting outside of his authority. that's not what this brahm is about. >> but it happens every day because they are instilled with this authority. that's what i'm trying to say. i have witnessed every single week somebody getting pulled into this web of local police officer meddling -- no one is saying immigration can't go and identify illegals and arrest them. i'm not suggesting that what i'm suggesting is that the local police need to be dealing with local crimes. not with immigration issues. immigration has vast vast resources. there is no reason why they can't handle the job that they have been assigned to in the constitution of the united states. juan: mr. carafano what you just heard from ms. church is you have got a lot of rogue cops out there who aren't obeying what is the intent of 287, which is the

bill alliances and coalitions that you are talking about. cops using this in a vindictive manner. >> you know, i would really love to seat list of cases that she has. because i don't -- time not aware that there were that many -- they haven't trained that many agents that they could be involved in all these cases. i'm not saying she is lying but i'm really skeptical that every case that she identified and every law officer that she had issues with is in these programs. you know, we just had a case -- juan: i have got to go. mr. carafano, ms. church, i want to thank you. that was a good debate. thanks again. in a moment after having so much to say about the controversy between the black harvard professor and the white cop, critics want to know why they haven't heard the president talk about the surge of violence in chicago that left an honor student dead. we'll have a report. plus, bill o'reilly versus the "new york times" in a face-to-face confrontation. you don't want to miss this when th

juan: thanks for staying with us. i'm juan williams in for bill o'reilly. in the personal story segment tonight, where is the outrage? as president obama flew to copen hague ton try to win the olympics for his hometown of chicago, some african-american members of that town want to know why the president hasn't spoken out about the beating death, absolutely bizarre and cruel beating death of a chicago honor student caught in the middle of a fight between two rival factions. president obama was very vocal about the controversy surrounding the arrest of a black harvard professor by a white cop. but so far not a peep, hasn't said a word about the murder of darren albert last week. that said, attorney general acre eric holder and arnie duncan will go to meet with members of the community. joining us now from boston, the reverend eugene rivers and from los angeles, civil rights

attorney leo terrell. you know what? eugene rivers, let me start with you and ask. we have an african-american president from chicago. we seen this videotape. how can he not speak out on this issue? it is a moral outrage. it is a challenge to us as black people. >> listen, the intellectual and moral asymmetry of president obama investing his political capital in the celebrity harvard square that resulted in a big national discussion about which beer they would drink at the white house and the death of an innocent child in president obama's hometown. listen, president obama and the obama administration, it is a shame, at best, and moral asymmetry that you would be

silent on the death of this young child and use this teachable moment wrapped in this tragedy to begin a national conversation about one of the major scourges of this country trip which is black-on-black crime. the issue in america -- juan: let me bring leo in here. leo terrell, let me ask you something, county president, even as i and you just heard reverend rivers, we are both, you know, just about want to have our heads blown off. can't believe what's going on with black-on-black crime is it unfair of us to ask that the president get involved here? do you think it would make a difference if he as president, the first black president said something with heart, with passion, would it make a difference to these kids who would doing doo something so cruel and so brutal to an honor student? >> juan, i think you and the reverend are wrong. it's a false analogy. the issue involving the police officer and the professor talks about a historical problem with

race relations between black and whites. we had a civil war about. this we had constitutional amendments over. this we had a voting rights act and a civil rights act. black op. black crime. black on brown crime exists throughout this country to. try to criticize the president because he talked about historical problem that we have had in this country black versus white and criticized him because did he not speak out with the same temperament on this particular tragic situation is wrong. i think it is a false analogy to criticize the president for that, juan. juan: wait a second now. one situation the president thought it was racial profiling. i don't think it was racial profiling when sergeant crowley showed up at that house. so i don't see the historical analogy. neighbors of all races calling somebody to professor gate's house, i don't see it but, anyway. let's assume that what you say is right. ok? even if that's right, don't you think there is a need to deal with this black-on-black crime situation especially when it's young men killing each other and

killing an honor student? >> juan, we quick. let me just say i don't think it's an issue about talking about it. what you are asking the president to do is to raise it to the same national level as this historical problem that we have had with black and white cases. that black and black crime is a recent development of last 25, 30 years. of the president sent the attorney general and he sent the secretary of education. to attack him because he didn't raise it to that level is wrong. juan: reverend rivers. >> it's not an attack. it's a challenge. this is a moral challenge to the president of the united states. i'm calling on the country and black people across the country to address this issue. you see, the civil war was not about a black professor getting into a beef with a white cop. the civil war was about slavery. there is no analogy there. slavery is what the civil war was about. in this case you have this scourge, this epidemic of

black-on-black violence as an entire generation of young black males are drowning in their own blood and we are making an humanitarian appeal to the leader of this country to exhibit the same moral concern that he exhibited in the case of my friend henry lewis gates and this remarkable tragedy where there has been silence across the board. frankly, just morally, i am astounded at the remarkable moral asymmetry and i'm calling on the country. juan: let me go back to leo. you say this is not the historical argument. you know what? there is a larger problem with black people and cops and all the rest. buff leo, when i think about what's going on in the streets of an urban america today, with young black kids killing young black kids, brother, it hurts my heart. and i can't believe that you would sit here and not say we

got to do something as adults in the room. >> juan, i'm not saying that. but what i'm saying the law in the reverend's argument is he is calling on black people. he should be calling on all americans. i questioned the reverend's motivation simply because mr. obama's skin shares the same color as ours. we make the same call if it was push? let me finish. i didn't interrupt you. as a civil rights attorney i feel the feed. we have black on brown crime as well. to make a reference that the reverend is calling on black america. this is an american issue. so all americans should be involved. juan: leo, you don't feel there is a special moment here for black adults, for people like you, me, reverend rivers, to speak up and say this is an outrage and in our community take some responsibility? >> our community consists of other racists. so i say yes, juan, we should let the lead. but we should make sure that we're inclusive with everyone else. again, juan, we have

black-on-brown crime in los angeles. juan: i'm just saying specific black on black issue. reverend rivers, i will give you the last word. we have got about 15 seconds. >> president obama, we appeal to you to exhibit the same moral and intellectual concern that you exhibited for our friends gates. for the poor black child in the inner cities. god bless you. juan: straight ahead, the editor of the "new york times" book review enters the no spin zone and o'reilly holds him to account. you are not going to want to miss this one. come on back to when dinosaurs

"new york times" book review says yes. so why has sarah palin's memoir, which won't even be released until next month already rocketed to number one on amazon.com's best-seller list? bill recently challenged the author of the book, the death of conservatism. bill: so your book you have classical conservatives and movement conservatives. what's the difference? >> well, i think classical conservatives believe in the idea of governance, the idea that our elected officials are there to help us run our society. that they see society and politics, the vehicles of politics as important to keeping us all together. conservatism is more about a culture war. it's about defining who the enemies might be in our scioto. >> can't you be both. >> some great conservatives have done precisely that ronald

reagan is a good example. bill: we did a poll last week asking when which organizations are trusted the least. the "new york times" was second. nbc news came in first. why do so many people. moderates, libertarians have a problem with the "new york times." >> i think because the "new york times" is a liberal newspaper. bill: it's more than a liberal newspaper. it attacks. attacks me all the time and attacks people like me. and you are 12 to 1 liberal to conservative columnists. 12 to 1. >> i think there we make a distinction or i would between liberal and left. to me leftism is marching in the streets in the 1960's. kind of american values. american society. i don't see a liberal president in john f. kennedy, for instance as being a leftist. i think liberal tradition. could the paper be more upfront abou that?i think it could be. bill: guys like herbert and krugman and dowd, frank rich. they are bomb throwers.

they are doing all they can to diminish conservatives in this country. now, you are the editor of the book review. and interestingly enough your book is called the death of conservatism. in the last year, you have got 15 books on the times list. including mine. that were best sellers, only three were reviewed out of the 15. these are conservative books. three out of 15. can you explain that? >> no. are you kidding? you don't read us. bill: yes, i do. >> all during the iraq war. no i'm talking about these stats right there. >> no. we were hammered week after week. i was called the king of the neocons. bill: 3 out of 15. >> i was attacked constantly. i still am. bill: it seems to mr. me that is unfair. am i wrong. >> you may be right. i will tell you the grounds. bill: i may be right? why do you allow it to happen? >> i will tell you what happens. first of all, someone like yourself dominates the most important book in our section. you have an enormous platform. we review 1% of the books published each year.

bill: these are huge books. these are big books. >> that's exactly the point. partly because they are so big, our readers don't need us to tell us about them. bill: do you think you are a fair man. >> i try to be. bill: you are the editor of the book review. left me throw up the illustration book review from my book culture warrior. >> the caricature. bill: the caricature makes me look like the devil. >> oh, come on. bill: look at the face, loom at them closely. >> it a parody. bill: parody, caricature. >> look at the way we caricatured hillary clinton. bill: i have never seen anybody caricatured to that degree. >> you didn't see hillary clinton review. bill: i didn't. death of conservatism is mr. tan house's book and i appreciate you coming. >> in my pleasure. juan: up next, did global warming wipe out the dinosaurs? we will investigate it when the factor comes right back. .

hi. number two, please. would you like that to hurt now or later? uh, what? sir, it's a simple question. do you want heartburn pain, now or later? these heartburn medicines make you choose... between hurting now or later. pepcid complete doesn't. it starts to neutralize acid in seconds... and keeps it under control all day or all night. sometimes you gotta make compromises, man. no, you don't... man. pepcid complete, works now and works later.

ofinannant re ool tellat wiuss er weteurrrlu m mt ds aryor y' stghtere inct hnoe fsplicoes eryoch'sre pramat dierca wng evdu y er. are more than words here. it's personal. i have diabetes. rodney's kid too. so we're so proud to manufacture... the accu-chek® aviva meters and test strips... here in the u.s.a. plus, we've proven you'll waste 50% fewer strips... when you use our meter, which means greater savings... for people with diabetes, like me. now that's a true american value. accu-chek® aviva. born in the u.s.a.

juan: in the "back of the book segment" tonight, did global warming wipe out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago? if not, what did? to get a better idea on the subject he spoke with terry gates, a well respected paleontologist. bill: doctor, 65 million years ago the last dinosaurs were running around and then disappeared. when did people show up? >> people showed up about 100,000 years ago. and that's what we know today as the modern man, 100,000 years ago. bill: you're telling me raquel welch was not chased around by a dinosaur, is that what you're saying? >> i'm sorry to say, but yes, that is true, she was not chased around by a dinosaur. bill: barney rubble and briggs briggs allison ur

clayton clayton

that contributed to the dinosaur

extinction. >> i also hear dinosaurs and bacteria, some newou bacteria ce in. >> it may be n true for a very smallo group.gr bacteria are evolving all the time. they're one of thee most quickli evolving life forms on earth. you don't get massive, whole species' death because of one bacteria. an entireing about group of type sores. >> after the dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago, what took their place? what came up? >> in the case of dinosaurs going extinct, the mammals came up to rise.o >> okay. some dinosaurs evolved because there was something going on ono earth that they didn't like that was killing them, evolved into birds. >> birds evolved approximately 150 million years ago from small

carnivorous dinosaurs. technically dinosaurs are notin extinct. >> if we, through some timeom machine, which may happen, who knows, go back to the dinosaur era, human beings, would the dinosaur stalk us? would they chase us and try to get us? >> there is no doubt that if yoi were to go back to that period, 65, 75 million years ago, you would have one chasing after you. you would have t rex chasing after you. >> fascinating, thanks very much for coming on. we appreciate it. >> sure thing, bill. >> that's it for us today. don't forget to check out bill o'reilley.com. and if you buy the no spin