was willing to take bigger risks on getting closer to america to put -- to put pressure on the soviet union, and -- and deng much more the hard-liner against the soviets and -- and -- and, therefore, that drove them together to make the final step. president reagan, the most -- the most muddled of all presidents. he and president clinton, i would argue, came into office with this sentimental attachment to a bygone era that was just not relevant today. taiwan, chiang kia-shek, had stood with us against communism. and he -- and he -- he had this notion that he was still standing against communism, even though he saw the benefits of an alliance -- a rough alliance with china against the soviet invasion of gaf -- afghanistan and against soviet expansionism more broadly. and he could never quite get it straight. he could never quite support his secretary of state, al haig, and they finally just parted over this and other issues. and -- and he got george shultz, who calmed things down and then stabilized the relationship for the rest of their term. george bush, the president who thought, perhaps,

and in march 1945, the united states was allied with the soviet union.and the alliance with the soviet union in the minds of many people, including mac arthur, was even more important than the alliance with britain. for many reasons. and eisenhower acted accordingly. at the time, you know. and did not agree with churchill. churchill didn't have the power at the time to carry through any of. but you must understand, this is 1945. this is the same eisenhower who, seven years later, picks up president and says to churchill, you want to do with the russians, you cannot do with the russians, the russians are enemies of mankind. and you see the same eisenhower, who in 1945, saw churchill as somewhat of being two and a russian in 1952, saw churchill as somebody perhaps not sufficiently. this was the same man. so you see, i'm never going to write anything else about the second world war, but as you see, it's not an easy subject. yes? >> i don't think enough has been written about the war in eastern europe, the losses the russians to compare to the united states.

any ambitions he had were in the east and frankly even the soviet union. if you had not given the war guarantee to poland and let's say poland cut the deal gave danzig a little town back to germany, how could hitler have invaded germany. he had poland and he had an ally in hungry. he had an ally in slovakia. and an ally in spain and portugal. in other words, he's surrounded by friendly countries. so i think there might not have been a world war ii. >> host: well, you do write in "churchill, hitler, and the unnecessary war" one short sentence that world war ii was a just war. >> guest: there's no doubt it was just. was it necessary. no i don't believe it was necessary. it came -- that's hitler -- excuse me, not hitler's -- the phrase is winston churchill's. and fdr says what shall we call this war? and churchill says why don't we call it the unnecessary war because there never was a war that was more easily prevented than the one we're in right now. and my view the fatal mistake was with the british giving the war guarantee to poland. people say what should

that were no communist countries in the world decides the soviet union. and there was a german national socialism which in a way was the strongest of the three. now, in every country, even in china or mongolia and so forth, these three forces existed. some of them were stronger than the others. look at china, for example. in china, there was supported by the british and the americans. there were the chinese communists supported by russia. and there were pro-japanese chinese who all sort of a government of their own, almost at the end of the war. so these three forces existed. all right, but this is not just a thing of the past. the second world war, a lot of the political divisions in the world today almost 70 years at the end of the second world war go back to the second world war. you see, it was not until the 1960s that in america books began to appear with the type of the good war, the greatest generation. well, they all have reasons other owns and altogether, they are not altogether wrong. but in a sense there is no such thing as a good war. except t

other words, should the u.s.o pursue a variant of the 1950snoe strategy that we had toured thee soviet union and china? the open up slightly to moscow, put tons of pressure on beijing, and pressure beijing into becoming more dependent on moscow so thag the noise of the soviets and create dissension in that relationship, and yet at the sot same time create leverage that beijing could then effectively at some point in the future, as i'll be recognized, be called bg upon to use by a future or current american administratione that could then compel beijing to recognize that logic. thank you. >> that's a good question. compe i'm going to ask the panelists to give short answers.ing to a e start with jack and then mov down the line >> thank you, scott.panelist nkhaanswer is, in my opinion, beijing is not deliberately doing this, but yes, it is by oi its actions extending the problem. but i concur with the october 5 visit of last year reversed what i described earlier that moment in time when pyongyang was as thinking it was on the wronghen path and needed to do something, after the wind as it, the

at the height of the soviet union a lot of non-soviet socialist voices in europe and america and around the world made the distinction between what they saw as the distortions of the soviet union and what they called communism which was clearly disbarred and so on and if you like true socialism the truth church of remarks it seems to me now that there is often a similar argument being made. and its acting islam which is cruel and any of its national stations. and the separate idea of the true faith which is religion and i wonder what you thought about that. >> well i was one of those on the left who spent a lot of time with the left opposition and people who did take the fall who were not in favor of nato or capitalism, people like in poland, some of the opposition's for democrat socialists at one time or another. so, i still have some sympathy for the critique. the thing that that is it is a bit more adjustable objectively. if you come to the conclusion there is something wrong with the pricing policy of the socialist economy it has a vaulting's difficulty working out with the value of

they have a border with the soviet union. poland and hungary and an ally in slovakia to have an ally in poland and an ally with italy and spain and portugal. in other words, surrounded by friendly countries. so i don't -- i think there might not have been a world war ii. >> host: you do right in charge of it for and the unnecessary war one short sentence could world war ii was a just war. >> guest: there's no doubt it was just. was it necessary? no, i don't believe it was necessary. that's it for -- excuse me, and of hitler. the phrase quote coach unnecessary war" is churchill's. he came in december of 1941 after pearl harbor. -- of yours is what should we call it and he says with a trickle of the unnecessary war because there never was a war that was more easily prevented than the one that we are in right now. and my view is that the fatal mistake was with the british given the war guarantee to poland. people say what should they have done, pat, after czechoslovakia? what should have done is very simple. they should have for

he feared an enemy more than he did the west, which was the soviet union. it would be lovely to imagine some scenario, i do not know which one exists, but there are some analysts in washington who would love the united states and iran to team up against israel and make that the common enemy -- that forbid that should ever happen. but there is an analogy that roger uses that has no basis in fact. we have been trying to engage with iran, not just for the last year, not just for four years during bush's second term, but throughout the clinton administration. the late carter administration tried to engage with khamenei. every single time it failed. why is it that we are perched on a course that has failed so repeatedly. this is something for roger to>> let's break and then go to a question. several questions have been coming into us from our audience and from our global web cast at ajc.org. whether making alliances with authoritarian leftist regimes in latin america, one in particular, but not just one, the degree to which we should be focusing in this discussi

having died in 1980, in 1985 there was say pr factor it was an ally that had broken away from the soviet union in 1948 so we tried as a government left and right to sue for yugoslavia at all times with money and low interest loans and you name it to help products come from yugoslavia the american government did not pay for the yugo but our ambassador drove around belgrade in a yellow yugo with the american flag trying to promote the car so we really did support the yugo. we gave it a lot of moral support and cheerleading. >> host: did it sell anywhere else in europe? >> england in small numbers and the brits said it was the best east european car so far. of the soviet bloc countries was the best of all of the cars compared especially greece and belgium in gave the license to the four-door car which is being both. >> the company no longer exist? >> it has changed its name. there is no more 82 but was produced remember 2008 the 28 year production run -- run which is longer than a ford model t. >> host: why is it called the worst car in history? >> want to know that car that sold a tiny percentag

everybody wanted to hold commodities and the soviet union had commodities and they had western currency and they needed to finance their own economy and their adventures around the world. i didn't tell you anything about that. i had them right where i had you and i put of off the hook. you read about the economic history of the 1970s, you run and embrace the economic conditions of 2008 to 2010. what i would like to do here for a few minutes is just to tell you a few facts. and narrate a few -- a little bit of the history of the great supply siders who talked about this. at columbia where i failed to take his class in the 1980s it's the stupidest thing i'd ever done. i tried to make up for it by writing the book. robert, as early as 1961, probably as early as 1968, he won the nobel prize in economics in 1999. he said the main reason you have economic crisis in the 20th century is you're misusing the institutions of 1913. in 1913 two great institutions were inventive, the federal reserve was created and the income tax was created. and both of these things are overused. and he said the mis

there is the person from the soviet union has said roadside dogs bark and the caravan moves on and i thought this coal industry is a roadside dog and the green caravan is moving on. we know this is the future but this talk about cold blindside any progress because we are reporting billions into it and it is not stopping either. >> i spent a great deal long time ago on the issue of nuclear power. looking into the west where the uranium reserves on the reservation had a lot of coal as well as and people are saying nuclear-powered, if we are not going to blow up mountains we won't have a nuclear power. we tried to not think about that alternative. nuclear power seems to be on many people's mind as a greener option until we get wind wills. nuclear power waste buried somewhere rather than the mountain tops if that is the choice. >> 90% of coal production is tiny. we have millions of tons of coal sitting on the docks. we stockpiled coal in the summer. in the old days we had so much coal my uncle would be called a pig. that is how you get charcoal pigs. nuclear, yesterday we opened our news

it's more than simply containing the soviet union and the soviet union was a lot tougher and stronger than iran. that is a fair point, but iran will be hard in other ways. we were already looking very hard. i will just give you one. i do not want to suggest containment is impossible. even if you a match in iran -- even if you imagine iran is the best -- during the cold war with the soviet union, which did not want to incinerate s, we've never the less got into some very nasty crisis with them over the cuban missile and berlin several times. what we learned from that scenario is it takes three things to make crisis management work. it takes both sides understanding each other. having good communication between the leadership. and the two leaderships being able to signal each other. that's how we got through those crisis. we do not have any of that with iran. we do not understand the iranians. they do not understand us. i do not want to suggest containment is impossible. i believe that it absolutely is possible. it is just going to be hard. >> i would argue that the trajectory of the no

he feared an enemy more than he did the west, which was the soviet union. it would be lovely to imagine some scenario, i do not know which one exists, but there are some analysts in washington who would love the united states and iran to team up against israel and make that the common enemy -- that forbid that should ever happen. but there is an analogy that roger uses that has no basis in fact. we have been trying to engage with iran, not just for the last year, not just for four years during bush's second term, but throughout the clinton administration. the late carter administration tried to engage with khamenei. every single time it failed. why is it that we are perched on a course that has failed so repeatedly. this is something for roger to explain. >> let's break and then go to a question. several questions have been coming into us from our audience and from our global web cast at ajc.org. whether making alliances with authoritarian leftist regimes in latin america, one in particular, but not just one, the degree to which we should be focusing in thi

the soviet union was on offense, our economy was collapsing under president carter. people had lost morale. then reagan came in and we had this extraordinary eight years and the soviet union disappeared, the economy took off. jobs were created. inflation was defeated. and i'm proud to be an american was a popular song and civic cultural rebuilt. by 1991 or 1992 i thought northeasterlily in retro -- naively in retrospect that we had won the big arguments. we had a series called the commanding heights which argued that hiayek and freedman and others had defended the keynesians and it turned out that we were wrong. that underneath all of this that the hard left and the universities and the government employee unions and bureaucracy and courts and among the labor union leadership and politicians that the hard left continued to grow basically ignoring every lesson. so, when the republicans failed in 2006 and 2008 and the country decided to repudiate them, the people that they elected were very hard left. you end up with a nancy pelosi and harry reid and barack obama. and

security council and laid out explicit directives with the intention of peaceically taking down the soviet union and bringing democracy or as they put it on the document, political pluralism to eastern europe and the soviet union. so that was a joy. because myself, my family, we spent a couple of summers staying at clark's ranch, interviewing them daily, getting to know him and his family. that's the case where it wasn't just a matter of looking at documents and books and other things that people had written, i got to know the figure and spend a lot of time with him. >> how did you write about hillary clinton? >> yeah, "god and ronald reagan started a trend. my editor tour cal morgan said your next should be on the faith of george w. bush. at the time, there hadn't been any books. steven mansfield, david aikman, those hadn't come out yet. i did that. and a couple of years, not long after that came out, cal morgan said would you like to do another god and book. i said well, i don't want to spend the career writing god and books. i am intrigued by the clinton. here are two religious democrats. rel

the soviet union was on offense, our economy was collapsing under president carter. people had lost morale. then reagan came in and we had this extraordinary eight years and t sovt union disappeared, the economy took off. jobs were created. inflation was defeated. and i'm proud to be an american was a popular song and civic cultural rebuilt. by 1991 or 1992 i thought northeasterlily in retro -- naively in retrospect that we had won the big arguments. we had a series called the commanding heights which argued that hiayek and freedman and others had defended the keynesians and it turned out that we were wrong. that underneath all of this that the hard left and the universities and the government employee unions and bureaucracy and courts and among the labor union leadership and politicians that the hard left continued to grow basical ignoring every lesson. so, when the republicans failed in 2006 a 2008 and the country decided to repudiate them, the people that they elected were very hard left. you end up with a nancy pelosi and harry reid and barack obama. and while oba

but then one of our very able negotiators showed me a map of all the sites in the former soviet union were inspecting. then, thanks to senator lugar and other efforts, those sites have been closed. they have been dismantled. it was not just in russia. it was in, and belarus -- kazakhstan and belarus and other places. we have twice as many inspections because we have so many fewer sites to inspect. >> i think it would be great for an eight grade level memo on how much less is more. someone will take -- that could be taken either way. i think it would be helpful. >> senator, if i could elaborate on the answer i gave before on the number of inspections -- the 18 are divided into two categories. the first 10 are both at deployed and non-deployed size. eight are at non-deployed sites. in the first category, we carry out inspections that were required gavotte inspections under start ii -- that were required inspection the -- inspections under start ii. under this treaty, we do both in the same inspection. for all practical purposes, the number of inspections is about the same as it was. >>

was a bit against liberalism and big government and soviet union and communist imperialism, but not so confident -- some conservatives thought of themselves as traditionalists. they thought the world ended with the french revolution and we were in the after times ever since. libertarian conservatives to state and government as such to some extent. but it seems to me and to -- if you really want to understand where it came from you have to look at american things. conservatism is reacting to the intellectual and political forces that progressivism unleashed at the turn of the last century. the peculiar domestic sources of american liberalism lie in the thought of woodrow wilson and herbert crowley and john dewey and that generation. the left has been living off of those ideas for 100 years. >> what is your favorite conservative book? >> guest: that is a tough one. i knew bill buckley for 30 years. it is not unexpected that i favorite conservative book would have been written bah bill buckley. two of his books--one of his last books called miles gone by, is unknown assortment of autobiog

i think cheap and readily available food like the counter image to the empty shelves and the soviet union, you know, and we're supposed to be very proud of the fact that our shelves are always full of this stuff because we americans are a very -- i mean, we are a very deserving and prosperous people. and this is part of our, you know, what do they call it? our heritage, our right to abundance, you know? and since we have a right to abundance and comfort and all this, you know, like it could be said that factory farms, with all the evil they represent in your book, are really part of delivering a better life to america. you know? >> like i said at the beginning they are phenomenal and they can raise animals very fast, relatively cheaply. and that each people and that's a powerful argument. but if i can just me to address a couple of things. >> my point is, that so much of what is menacing us today, as you say, the looming threat, so much was originally an idea developed as progress in delivering a better life to america. >> isn't that always the case? >> it's like our problems always had t

and the chinese saw what happened to the soviet union, and to go down there. thousand people killed. to have a problem with tibet. the people in the north are more chinese. and you're having it happen in southern -- people read about bangkok. in southern taiwan, anti-booze, anti-tie with a very militant in its religion and is getting increasingly violent. and you mention the book, i'm reading it right now, world on fire it and i think she has got it down cold. and she mention the only example. but her and, they are chinese and her and is in the philippines and get all the filipinos working for. her aunt had her throat slit, and she was killed because, she said i didn't realize that the chinese control an enormous amount of the wealth in the philippines. and he knows about of the wealth in indonesia. and she argues that was called the market, minority, wherever they go, they do extremely well. and then you have hundreds, a couple hundred million indonesians not doing well. the market dominant does will in the free market but once you bring this american-style o

i did not tell you about how inflation and the soviet union. because everybody wanted to hold commodities. the adventures around the world. i had them right where i wanted them and let them off of the hook. the 70s, we can go on. you read about the history in the 1970s, you run and embrace the economic conditions of 2008 to 2010. what i'd like to do here for a few minutes is to tell you the facts and narrate a few, a little bit of the history of the great supply-side who vanquished all of this. i failed to take the profession call, but i made up for it by writing a book. as early as 1958 it said the main reason for inflation was the 191, the two great institutions of macroeconomic policy were invented, the federal reserve was created and the income tax was created. both of these are overused. the misuse is the opinion any economic crisis starts in the modern period. the way you solve is you restrain the institutions. you stabilize the value of the currency and you cut taxes. restrain them. not kill. you can maybe kill them later. the easy way t

the soviet union was in offense. our economy was collapsing under president carter. people have lost morale. the president gave a speech about malaise. reagan came in. the soviet union disappeared. the economy took off. jobs were created. inflation was defeated. "proud to be an american" became a popular song. in 1993, i thought we had one at the big arguments. northeasterlily in retro -- naively in retrospect that we had won the big arguments. we had a series called the commanding heights which argued that hiayek and freedman and others had defended the keynesians and it turned out that we were wrong. that underneath all of this tt the hard left and the universities and the government employee unions and bureaucracy and courts and among the labor union leadership and politicians that the hard left continued to grow basically ignoring every lesson. so, whenhe republicans failed in 2006 and 2008 and the country decided to repudiate them, the people that they elected were very hard left. you end up with a nancy pelosi and harry reid and barack obama. and while obama's

it's more than simply containing the soviet union and the soviet union was a lot tougher and stronger than iran. that is a fair point, but iran will be hard in other ways. we were already looking very hard. i will just give you one. i do not want to suggest containment is impossible. even if you a match in iran -- even if you imagine iran is the best -- during the cold war with the soviet union, which did not want to incinerate s, we've never the less got into some very nasty crisis with them over the cuban missile and berlin several times. what we learned from that scenario is it takes three things to make crisis management work. it takes both sides understanding each other. having good communication between the leadership. and the two leaderships being able to signal each other. that's how we got through those crisis. we do not have any of that with iran. we do not understand the iranians. they do not understand us. i do not want to suggest containment is impossible. i believe that it absolutely is possible. it is just going to be hard. >> i would argue that the trajectory of the no

. >> it was quite a journey first as a reporter in south africa than the soviet union and the talk comes together in this book. >> host: tell us about some of your findings. >> 18 is my eight uneasiness was one term i do not use of the book because it is accepted by the academic community but there are two versions white people saw blockbusters says destabilization merger of them away. black people generally in baltimore saab blockbusting is something good that opened housing for the blacks. >> host: m&a stop you hear what does blockbusting mean the? >> it has nothing to do with video rentals bus speculation on housing white speculator is would buy housing at cheaper rates from the fleeing whites and then flop houses and sell them to the blacks at very high interest rates. >> host: so go ahead with your analysis. >> guest: that is one difference. what i found and this is very similar in many other cities, it is the all-american city it may not have happened exactly the way it happened, but these are the things that people have talked about so it is a frank discussion now becoming very to

the disappearance of the soviet union has created a very unbalanced situation. the crux of that is in the middle east. in this unbalanced situation, the united states has seized the opportunity to push forward aggressively with the drive to bring the oil of the middle east under american control so that the americans will have their hand on the oil spigot of the middle east and say you can have some and you cannot have some. the countries of the world who need oil will need to get from the americans. the unbalanced situation of the middle east released the united states to which the first hegemonism war against iraq and 1991. china's view is that both sides are head chemigemonist. and then the 2003 war, and so forth. some believe that in the american heart of hearts, in a secret blueprint in some office in washington is the -- iran is next on the agenda. the problem is, from china's perspective, you have got to have good relations with the americans. the middle east is the center of the american drive for hegemony. the americans are doing a lot of bad things in

the paper trail of this very explicit directives with intentioned of peacefully taking down the soviet union and bringing democracy where they put it in the documents political quarrelsome to eastern europe and soviet union. so that was the july because myself, my family, we spent a couple of summers across the ranch interviewing him daily, getting to know him and his family and that is a case where it wasn't just a matter of looking at documents and looking at books and other things people had written i actually got to know the figure and spend a lot of time with him. >> how did you come to write about hillary clinton? >> lagat and ronald reagan book started the trend i guess. my editor at harpercollins -- at time there hadn't been any books. stephen's book david aiken's book, both on bush's state. those hadn't come out yet so i did that and then a couple of years not long after that came out she came back to me and said would you like to do another god and bouck? i said i don't want to spend my whole career with the god and books by and intrigued by the face of the clinton bill and i sit h

at the end of the cold war the soviet union became very unified.e should remember that reagan phrase, "mr. gorbechav, tear this wall down." why are we keeping the koreans apart if we fought for, you know, the two germanys to be unified? unified? isn't a rational person come to the conclusion that had we built with not the -- north korea earlier after the collapse of the swune swoon -- soviet union maybe having them come to negotiation table they could actually be one unified korea? guest: i think you are right, there is a lot to be learned about the example of germany and the unification of germany at the end of the cold war. at this time, as you will remember, the south koreans also reached out to the nean -- north koreans to lead to a peace treaty on the peninsula. there still is no peace treaty. there only is an amistice that ended the korean war. and something that would lead them to a brighter future without the military threat they pose on the 38 parallel. there was tried, i think, for over 10 years to try to get the north korean regime to he

he travelled to the soviet union after the death of joseph stalan. he was rarely involved in developing his photos. it was all about what was called the shutter moment. >> for cartier bresson, everything that was really exciting about photography was over as soon as he released the shutter. he was one of the most talented photographers ever at making very clear, simple pictures. classically organized, almost like a painting from the 17th century. but what really mattered to him about photography was, it was a way of engaging the world. photography was a way of being involved with, and trying to understand, people, social situations. anywhere in the world. he could walk into a room and within 10 minutes, he would know who was the powerful person, who was the weak person, who was the liar, who was the cheat. and it was that ability to grasp not just individuals, but the whole social situation. that's what his photography is about, and that's what is so remarkable about looking at it. is that you can have that sense of understanding. >> in addition to t

but the soviet union stopped at the theory of mutual insurance instruction, too.we both said you can't hit nuclear weapons because if you do will blow up the world. you should try to apply that theory in cyberspace that breaks down for a lot of reasons. one, you don't really know sometimes who's attacking you in cyberspace. it's not with high confidence initially because you can, you can make it look like someone is attacking, when it's actually somebody else. number one. number two, and mad unit with a nuclear weapon would do. it would when your whole day. there were 20,000 -- is that right -- no, there were 2200 nuclear explosions in the atmosphere during the testing period. and so, everybody got to see what clear weapons could do. and our nuclear weapons and china and russia and england, they'll do the same thing, very destructive. so there was some confidence in what the world would look like. we're not really sure who has what capability in cyberspace. you can't buy satellite over china and count the cyberwarriors the way we used a flyover and count the missi

from communist to western democracies after the fall of the berlin wall and the collapse of the soviet union. although it happened a long time ago, i am especially proud of the losing fight that i help wage with congressman henry reuss and others to prevent the passage of the reagan budget which at the time of devastating inflation, cut taxes at the same time the defense budget was being doubled, all paid for with borrowed money, more than tripling the long-term budget picture. the budget at the time was progressive alternative to the budget of both parties would spend less, borrowed less, and produced smaller deficits than either the democratic or republican-based bills. at the time, our actions were hugely unpopular, about 70% of the voters in my district at the time supported the reagan budget. time has proven us right. today, i am similarly proud that i was the principal author of the much maligned but absolutely essential economic recovery act of 2009 which, in the midst of the deepest and most dangerous economic catastrophe and 70 years, has prompted desperately needed purchasing power

we're following the failed model of the soviet union and stamping out freedom. thank you, gentleman, i appreciate pennsylvania for sending g.t. down. it's a treat to serve with you. thank you all. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam, i respectfully wish to resign from the committee of homeland security. i have been honored to serve on the committee and have found my experience to be extremely rewarding. signed, sincerely, ben rahilou juan, member of congress. -- ben ray lieu juan, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you so very much. and i request permission to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues during the course of this hour. the speaker pro tempore: without

the soviet union adopted the theory of mutual assured destruction so it was not mutual. we both said you can't hit us with nuclear weapons because if you do we will blow up the world. if you try to apply that theory in cyberspace, it rakes down. for a lot of reasons. one, you don't really know sometimes who is attacking you in cyberspace. it is not with high confidence initially because you can make it look like somebody is attacking but it is actually somebody else. number 2, in mad, you noonan what a nuclear weapon would do. it would ruin your whole day. there were 20,000-- 2200, 2200 nuclear explosions in the atmosphere during the testing period. and so everybody got to see what nuclear weapons could do, and our nuclear weapons and china's and russia's and england's did the same thing, very destructive. so there was some confidence in what the war would look like. we are not really sure who has what capability in cyberspace. you can't fly a satellite over china and count the cyberwarriors the way we used to fly over and count the missiles and count the tanks and count

there is no comparison to nazi germany or china or the soviet union. but as a threat to our way of life, the degree to which the secular socialist left represents a fundamental replacement of america, a very different world here. a very different outcome. i think it is a very serious threat to our way of life. >> chris: your proposals are as dramatic as your analysis of the situation. you say don't reform, replace. replace the environmental protection agency. preplace the department of education. replace with what? >> if the case of the environmental protection agency the bureaucracy which is self-selected. people who believe they have the right to make the most amazing micromanagement judgments around the whole country. if you look at the degree to which they new issue rules, believe they can regulate the entire carbon economy, again you want to talk about socialism. how about having a government agency of unelected people who decide they can literally rewrite the entire economy based on carbon. i think it is hard to reform an agency which spent two g

there is no comparison to nazi germany or china or the soviet union. but as a threat to our way of life, the degree to which the secular socialist left represents a fundamental replacement of america, a very different world here. a very different outcome. i think it is a very serious threat to our way of life. >> chris: your proposals are as dramatic as your analysis of the situation. you say don't reform, replace. replace the environmental protection agency. preplace the department of education. replace with what? >> if the case of the environmental protection agency the bureaucracy which is self-selected. people who believe they have the right to make the most amazing micromanagement judgments around the whole country. if you look at the degree to which they new issue rules, believe they can regulate the entire carbon economy, again you want to talk about socialism. how about having a government agency of unelected people who decide they can literally rewrite the entire economy based on carbon. i think it is hard to reform an agency which spent two g

1984, he was a left wing and he feared centralized planning, that he wrote in 1984 not about the soviet union or nazi germany, he said a warning that a too strong central government with the best of intentions can ruin the invent of freedom. not describing the soviets or fascists or nazis but describing this threat of that system. host: newt's book, that the soviet machine can be a threat to us as the soviets. atlanta you are on. caller: good morning, newt, we miss you in atlanta. i got a couple of things, first of all, let me get your take on should congress be the only authority to make war? guest: well, no. i think there is a distinction. congress is the only authority that declare war. but from the very beginning under george washington and thomas jefferson and adsoms, the president has the capacity to wage war, and protecting america that they may need decisions past congress. i urged in 2001 an act of war after 9/11. it was the lawyers said don't do it. i think in retrospect they were wrong. when the united states is a long combat, it should be before the threat of war. and there is som

i remember a story he once told when we were fighting the cold war about a guy in the soviet union who wanted to buy a car. he goes into the transportation bureau and says he wants to buy a car. the guy says you can pick up your black sedan 10 years from today. the guy says, will that be in the morning or the afternoon? the guy at the transportation rewrote says, what difference does it make? he says he has the plumber coming in the morning. ronald reagan had a way of captioning -- capturing what was so unique about the american experience. it is what separates us from so many countries about the world. it is the principle of 1176. -- 1776. as a look at the challenges we face today, i am reminded of that. i think about the things that this great party stands for -- a limited role of government, personal freedom coupled with personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, not spending more than you have come a living within your means, and belief that you do achieve peace through strength, the superiority of the individual over the government. those are foundational republican principle

and yet we abandoned them after after the soviet union dissolved. we abandoned them and did not help them rebuild their country, as we should have and they ended up with these radical or says that play, and then with 9/11 and i might add during that time in the 19 '90s i was here cling for usto make sure that we did right at them and that it would hurt us if we did not. and here it did, but here again what happened? after 9/11 with 211 million soldiers on the ground and several, perhaps 20, 30,000 members of the northern alliance, and at one point, when

it was set up as an alliance against the soviet union. the soviet union disappears and the question is what is nato's relevance. in the 1990's we really did determine it was a very important tool with dealing -- for dealing with problems out of area, in the balkans, for instance. so, as people were concerned about what was happening to the internal membership of nato, they knew they were affected by ethnic cleansing and killings in the balkans. the last strategic concept was written in 1999, before all of the new country joined nato. there were 12 originally, then 16, and now 28. that is something that has to be taken into the duration. and the other issue is 9/11. so a lot has happened since the last strategic concept. what this one is about is to try to reassure the central membership that an attack on one is an attack on all and also to make clear that if there are evens, such as the balkans and the afghanistan issue or other parts -- global problems like nuclear proliferation, that nato will also be there for its members on these outs

in october of 1957, the launch by the soviet union of the sputnik satellite struck fear in the heartsof americans. stut pick ii went into -- sputnik ii went into space carrying a dog. and america was experiencing troubles and public setbacks. on december 6, 1957, a vanguard rocket failed to launch a u.s. satellite into space when it exploded on national television. in january, 1958, the u.s. successfully launched a 31-pound explorer i satellite, but even this victory was followed by the loss of another vanguard satellite in february. as the early space race continued through 1958 and 1959, the soviet union always seemed to be a step ahead of the united states. the shock of sputnik and the fear the united states was losing its competitive edge inspired a national effort to prove and improve american leadership in the fields of science, math and engineering. the u.s. poured energy into basic research and development as well as science, tech -- technology and mathematics education. these investments were beginning to pay off. the usefulness of satellites to observe the earth remained unp

president named ronald reagan came to power with the intention to expose the soviet union. unlike his predecessor jimmy carter, reagan dared to stand up to the soviets from a position of both military strength and moral clarity. he eventually would be freed in a 1986 u.s. soviet u.s. prisoner swap, but in an interview a few years ago, he recalled that his brightest, most glorious day came in 1983 when reagan proclaimed before the entire world that the soviet union was an evil empire. for us, he said, that was a moment that really marked the end for them and the beginning for us. the lie had been exposed and could never, ever be untold now. this was the end of lenen's revolution and the beginning of a new revolution, a freedom revolution. the reagan revolution. what should we take from this proud chapter in american history? america is at its best when its national security strategy features two vital and mutual rally reinforcing pillars. first, the notion that we should achieve peace only from a position of strength. second, we apply firm moral clarity to our foreign policy.

and this is true any 18th century, france, the sister in 19 century, this is true in 20 century soviet union it's always been to accept a straight line to concentrated political power. and in the three decades since that happened, in this country, then market after market. in market after market, trading companies run by wall street, financiers have inserted themselves into the relationships between american citizens. and i give you an example of how this works. one of the things i did was write this book as i said i'm going to go find out, i'm going to go buy myself a yeoman farmers, one of the last jeffersonian, madisonian farmers that i went to this place in tennessee, eastern tennessee, the watauga valley. i found this fellow named ronnie hazelwood. he has a deer in his 70 cows on that. mr. hazelwood, where do you sell your milk? he said that's become improper to use to sell in the local community. but now i can't. now i depend -- there's a guy on the other side of the blue ridge since a truck over every day and he picks up my milk and goes to couple other surviving carries. but what abo

[train whistling] faced with the pre-eminence security threat of his time -- the soviet union -- he was a strong warrior. he had no illusions about the nature of the soviet adversary, which he once called "global in scope, rose in purpose, and city is in method. -- insidious in method." no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. during his presidency, he resisted pressure to intervene militarily in vietnam and the middle east. this restraint was not just his hatred of war and all of its attendant costs and horace. -- horrors. it came from an understanding that even the united states, near its zenith in strength and prosperity, did not have unlimited political, economic, and military resources. expanding them in one area -- a protected war in the developing world -- would sap the strength available to do anything else. furthermore, he strongly believed that the united states and any nation could only be as militarily strong as it was economically dynamic and physically sound. he lamented the cost of large defense establishment, maintain at a high level of readines

machine of obama and the democrats is as great a threat to the country as nazi germany and the soviet union and the cold war. that's a strong charge. he backs it up. some people will be outraged. some people will be persuaded. >> you also asked him about one of the big news stories, the nomination of elena kagan to the supreme court. he's the first national figure i heard take such a strong opposition to the point he thinks the president should withdraw her line. that stands in stark contrast to your other special guest, laura bush. >> that's right. gingrich says that her effort to keep the military from recruiting because the don't ask don't tell policy and whether or not that was discriminatory, he says shows she's anti--military and she shouldn't be on the supreme court and is exactly as you said, he believes the president should withdraw her nomination. we asked laura bush when we interviewed her about her new book in dallas on friday, she said, i think her nomination is great. she didn't go into detail about her legal positions, but as we've known for some time, she's a big supporter o

authoritarianism to western capitalist democracies after the fall of the berlin wall and the collapse of the soviet union. although what happened a long time ago, i am especially proud of the losing fight that i helped wage with congressmen henry royce and mo udall to prevent the passage of the fiscally irresponsible reagan budgets, which at a time of devastating inflation cut taxes at the same time the defense budget was being doubled, all paid for with borrowed money, more than tripling the long-term budget deficit picture. the ob-year old-royce alternative budget was a progressive alternative to the budget of both parties, which spent less, borrowed less, and produced smaller deficits than either the democratic or republican base bills, and won the support of a majority of democrats. at the time our actions were hugely unpopular. about 70% of the voters in my district supported reagan's budget, but time has proven us right. today i am similarly proud that i was the principal author of the much maligned but absolutely essential economic growth -- economic recovery act of 2009, which in the midst of the