tv Book Discussion CSPAN September 20, 2014 7:48pm-9:01pm EDT
we admire them. it may not be because we agree with them all the time, we certainly don't and we find great flaws but they knew how to get things done. >> host: the book in the documentary "the roosevelts" an intimate history all this week on pbs today want to thank ken burns and geoffrey ward for joining us this morning. >> guest: thank you. >> guest: thank you very much. next on booktv in a collection of essays david horowitz accounts his transition from an opponent of the political left as one of the critics. this is about an hour. >> thank you everybody. a democratic strategists once widely said everybody has a game
plan until you punch them in the mouth. the left is obviously taking that strategy too hard and perfected while the right is taken so many shots of the mouth that we have been punch drunk and on the ropes. but maybe not for much longer. david harwood's new book "take no prisoners" the battle plan for defeating the left is the manual for conservative victory. it's a manual for punching the left in the mouth which i think is an appropriate metaphor for an organization freedom center which david himself is described as not a think tank that a battle tank. this is the right book at the right time from the right man. i'm not going to go on too long about david because there can't be anyone here who has nowhere been deeply grateful for the epic contributions that david horowitz has made for our site. he's the most notable apostate and most relentless nemesis. he is a lightning rod for their
hatred and politics and personal distractions of the cost to him is extraordinarily high but contributions have been and continue to be invaluable among those of us who believe in the unfashionable values of freedom and american exceptionalism. in addition to his activism to the freedom center and spearheading work at college campuses fair and balanced david has been such a prolific import writer that i don't have time to list all of his books but i will name a few standout which you must read. radical sons, left illusions, the art of political war unholy alliance, the book of the american left and now "take no prisoners" including the work that mike mentioned he is working on now. you are such a slacker david. please could you get a little busier because we need you. ladies and gentlemen please welcome a man who's been very good to me personally a man his game plan will punch that left in the mouth, the one man that will take a defense for freedom,
david horowitz. [applause] [applause] >> thank you marc. we have today to celebrity twi twins, steven bauer who was a great actor. [applause] you may remember him from scarface that any of you who are not watching ray donovan should start catching up. he plays donna that security guy. and the a man whom i think is the funniest man in hollywood, the brains behind the gun
series, the airplane series and scary movies, david zucker. [applause] c-span is here and i would like to begin with a tribute to brian lamb, the republican who has run this channel for 35 years and made it the fairest and most balanced cable network. i have a special reason to appreciate this network and brains achievement. for 30 years i have been blacklisted by the mainstream media for my political views. as far as they are concerned by books don't exist. the blacklist begins with "the new york times" which sets the standard for all the other reviews. 30 years ago the times reviewed books that we wrote on the front
page of the sunday local news calling them irresistible epics. that is peter and i were leftists. in 1985 when an article for the "washington post" called lefties for reagan and the times retaliated by relegating us to its back pages. i became more and more prominent conservative voice in and at times made me at unperson and other papers followed suit. the last time the new york review of books reviewed a book of mine was in 1985, just before peter and i had judgment to reveal that we had voted for reagan. i take a particular pleasure in thinking brian lamb and -- brian lamb in the c-span executives are keeping alive the principles of tolerance and pearl is some which the times and so-called liberals have reduced and for giving me this opportunity to tell people about my book.
today is the 13th anniversary of the most devastating attack on the american homeland since the british burned the white house and 1812. the 9/11 atrocity was more than an attack. it was a declaration of war against america, against israel, against the west generally and against every modern value associated with tolerance and freedom. president bush rose on the historical occasion is a worthy commander-in-chief unlike the president occupying the white house. most importantly he recognized the fact that this was a war declared on us. it was a war whose leader has said it was the duty of every muslim to kill every american, every every christian and every other infidel he could lay his hands on. bush responded to this barbari barbarian -- by declaring a war on terror.
the war on the terrorists who had attacked us. not just al qaeda but as he put it every terrorist within global reach. unfortunately the war on terror that democrats have opposed for a decade or more. the precise moment they defected from the war on terror was july 2003 on the democratic leadership turned against the war in iraq which they had authorized only once before. since that time democrats have been so determined that the united states should not fight a war on terror so when a democrat barack obama -- named barack obama became president he eliminated the term war on terror from the u.s. government entirely and replace it with overseas contingency operations which describes exactly nothing. obama did worse, much worse. he set out to degrade america's
military to appease american islamic sworn to kill americans when they could. obama supported and financed the muslim brotherhood which is the fountainhead of islamic terror. this evil organization than in control of egypt's government he gave 1.4 million american dollars and 16 fighter-bombers which would have been used against israel had not the brother had been overthrown shortly afterwards. [applause] for over a decade democrats have insisted that the war work conducted by islamic terrorists against americans treated as an individual criminal acts to be prosecuted in courts of law where the terrorists will be protected by americans.
these were used as a terrorist to tie her hands allowing them to squander millions of taxpayer dollars pretending to be innocent. the war we are and as they were between -- and civilization and democrats have done everything they can to sabotage our side of the war and disarm us in the face of these terrorists. when i hear a public and say something like this i will begin to believe that republicans might win the 2016 election. since 1945 republicans have never one the popular vote in a national election. when national security was the primary issue of the campaign. yet in 2008 and 2012 national security was almost absent from the republican campaign plan. they were afraid to mention
obama's assault on the nation's security because the democrats would attack them as warmongers. in the third debate on foreign policy romney held the leader of america's global retreat and pretended to endorse his policies. how did this happen? it happened because republicans gave up the national security narrative when they fail to defend american intervention in iraq and worse fail to hold democrats responsible for training in the war which is vital to the war on terror. bush was right to go into iraq in march of 2003. [applause] he was right to remove saddam hussein one of the monsters of the 20th century who was supporting terrorism and determined to acquire chemical biological and nuclear weapons. the democratic leadership including bill clinton, john kerry and the global warring
hysteric al gore reported the removal of saddam by force as did the majority of democrats in the senate. unlike obama's interventions in libya and elsewhere bush wanted to remove saddam authorized but not only by congress but the u.n. security council. forces entered iraq in 2003 and toppled saddam in april. just three months later the democratic party was the nation's media and their pocket turned savagely against bush. they called him a liar and a traitor and condemned the mission in iraq is quote illegal, immoral and unnecessary. that is al gore. these attacks went on for the next five years until the democrats entered the white house promising to throw in the towel and withdraw from the field of battle.
what happened to change the democrats from supporting the war in iraq to austere enemies? no republican or conservative seems to remember this and indonesia that cripples the efforts to expose the dangerous policies of the democrats. i will tell you. absolutely nothing took place in iraq or in america's core to cause the democrats the trail. absolutely nothing. what happened to change the democrats support the americans were against the terrorists are the saboteurs of that war with this trait in the spring of 2003 as american troops entered iraq, the democratic presidential primary was in progress and an antiwar so-called radical from the 60s named howard dean was about to run away with the nomination leaving all the other
candidates including john kerry far behind. it was this man -- this fact in this fact alone that caused kerry to subsequently win the nomination to repudiate his support for the war to staff this country in the back and to betray young men and women he voted to send into harm's way. of course no republican used words like this to describe what he did. in july 2003 the whole democratic party fell into line with kerry's betrayal and became accusing bush of lying to snooker the country into war. they said the war was to benefit bush's oil cronies and dick cheney's former company halliburton. they said the war was immoral, illegal and unnecessary. they said bush lied and people died in this began a sabotage of
america's effort to destroy the islamic terrorists in iraq and the middle east that lasted for the next five years. what was the republican response to this treason? violence. republicans were too scared or too polite to fight back. after the damage was done karl rove admitted this was his greatest mistake but the damage was done. the centerpiece of the democrats attack on bush was that he lied to them about the intelligence concerning the programs to develop weapons of mass distraction. he lied about the intelligence they sent to get their support for the unnecessary war. in fact bush could not have lied. democrats like john kerry sat on the intelligence committee and have access to every piece of intelligence that bush did. it was the democrats who are
lying. they were lying because they couldn't admit that they have turned their backs on the war they supported, that they have betrayed their country in order to win a primary election in an attempt to win a national election. the democrats said the war was unnecessary because there were no weapons of mass distraction in iraq but the war was about saddam's determination to acquire these weapons and his violation of 17 u.n. security council resolutions designed to prevent him from doing that. and of course there were weapons of mass destruction but the democrats had put the whole country in denial so even when the evidence smacks them in the face they still can't see it. a month or so ago the big news story was that isis had stumbled onto a chemical weapons storage plant in iraq. the plant had been built by saddam hussein.
a news anchor said that the chemical weapons were dangerous in isis hansen left it at that but they fail to say the storage facility showed there were weapons of mass distraction in the democrats have lied in order to sabotage america's war against saddam and the terrorists in iraq. even megan kelly managed the same program to convert a chemical weapons storage and in a later segment to accuse dick cheney of being wrong about iraq because there were no weapons of mass destruction. he was right. there were. this colossal misleading of the war in iraq is that ominous consequences. if you want to understand why terror is real iraq today in the middle east it's the democrats defection from the war in iraq
and their ten-year campaign to force america's retreat from the war on terror. consider the consequences of the democrat vicious campaign. because they divided the country and send half of them against the war saddam couldn't send chemical weapons into syria. where do you think bashar al-assad got those chemical weapons anyway? [applause] because of america's -- iran escaped unpunished for the ied senator placed in her back the killed and maimed a majority of american casualties. perhaps we could have won the war on terror than when it was manageable if the democrats had been on our side. what the republicans are listed
in the face of the democratic betrayal was to allow the democrats to turn up the trail a patriotic act. and to stigmatize republican support for an unnecessary war into page radack warmongering. this is why republicans in the last two elections were unwilling to stand up for their country. that is why they lost the elections. they were afraid of being portrayed as reckless. to this day no republican has the spine to call for boots on the ground in iraq which is obviously necessary advices is to be defeated. that is the direct consequence of the false picture. this is the price you pay when you lose the political battle or throw in the towel. republicans will not win the presidential election in 2016 unless they hold democrats accountable for the years of
degrading america's military and leading america's retreat. unprincipled and unscrupulous as they are, the democrats will now try to position themselves at the head of the war against isis. republicans should not let them get away with this. if it were not for the democrats determination to turn their backs on the war we would still have a massive military break -- base in iraq with 20,000 troops in the country. republicans should make this a political mantra and throw it into the democrats face is every chance they get. [applause] it was actually mike tyson who said everybody has a game plan until you punch them in the mouth. democrats have a massive punch in the mouth from republicans. every election, every time they
open their mouths democrats are accusing republicans as racist, sexist, enemies of the poor, selfish and uncaring. that is a moral indictment and it grows those accused of this off the game plan. you wind up defending yourself against charges he can't defend yourself against certainly not in the political arena where you have nine seconds to respond. what is that the republican punch in the mouse for the? there is none. republicans are busy telling positive stories. that's what they like to tell and they are good at it and i'm not against positive stories.
the whole republican convention was about people who came to america, people who were born in america for dashboard defeated and so forth. every republican consultant and you know jim demint of the heritage foundation, every one of them says we need positive stories. well, if somebody is spending $200 million to tar you as a corporate predator and someone who killed a woman because she had cancer and mistreat his dog, boaters are not going to exactly listen to your positive stories or care about them. you can't have -- if somebody thinks you are racist, they are not going to listen to your policy proposals in the same way
as if they don't and that should be very obvious. so what should republicans do? this is a kind of -- of the book i have written. this is why foreign policy is important for republicans. what should be the republican punch in the mouth? you have to fight fire with fire. you can't stop defending yourself and do it to him before he does it to you. politics is a street fight and i think they are sick characterological problem with republicans. they are averse to street fights. they want to play with by the
market rules. they would like politics to be a debate about politics. it's not a debate about policy. it's a debate about whether you have abused your dog or not. that's the reality and it's been that way ever since the beginning of the republic. i mean as you can tell i grew up on the left so i grew up as a fighter. it's beyond me why republicans don't fight back. i really don't understand it but here's the punch in the mouth that republicans should use. in the first place the democratic party is the party of racism. [applause] in the 1960s the civil rights act outlawed, outlawed racial
categories in laws and regulations governing institutions. the democrats spent 50 years putting racial categories back in so racial categories now define whether you can get it into a good school or not, whether you can get a job and in fact almost every aspect of our cultural life is under the gun from the democrats racists categorizing of everything. we just witnessed in ferguson missouri a month-long lynch mob. that's what it was, a lynch mob. convicted the officer because he was white and the dead person is black. before the trial try him, hang him or else. no justice, that is a threat.
that is the kind of threat of a lynch mob. and of course it was led by the nation's leading lynch mob leader, al sharpton who is the president's adviser on race relations. the president is a racist. everybody knows that. [applause] we have the other racist air colder conducting a witchhunt against the other attorneys. the democrats control every major city in america, chicago, st. louis, philadelphia, detro detroit, new york, los angeles and they have 462100 years. monopoly control. everything that's wrong with the
inner cities of america, the policy can affect democrats are responsible for. [applause] they are just running and have destroyed the lives of millions, millions of poor black and hispanic children who were in public schools per year and year out do not teach them and they will fight to the death to prevent these kids from getting scholarships called vouchers so they can find schools that will teach them. and at the same time, at the same time democrats including the president of the united states sends her their kids to private school. how racist is that yet no republican will mention it. [applause] why aren't the republicans
holding their 2016 convention to try to assemble of democratic oppression of poor blacks. [applause] of poor black people. detroit in 1961 was the richest per-capita city in america, the crown jewel of industrial america. in 1961 a liberal democrat was elected mayor and begin putting in place democratic policies. what are those policies? those policies were antibusiness and antiwhite. that is what they are. what they did was they drove out the business community from detroit into the suburbs and they drove out the white middle class tax base. so today detroit is bankrupt. it's the fourth largest city in america. two-thirds of the population are gone and 2 million people, 85%
of them are african-americans and 5% of them are unemployed. 30% of them are on food stamps. they took a first world giant and turned it into a third world country. it's really a generation of 50 years. that is what the democrats did when there were no republicans around to stop them. why wasn't the republican party running in detroit or chicago which is a war zone? who's responsible for that? is there one republican or to? i don't get it. i don't get it. the civil rights movement has become a lynch mob.
i wanted to mention this because i find this extremely telling. they took a woman named paula deen who was built-in multi-million dollar business on tv, on food tv. they took this woman and they destroyed her business and her wealth and they made her into a poster child for racism. this was a woman who voted for barack obama, a woman who gave millions of dollars to charity to poor black children in the inner city and her crime, her crime was that in a private conversation 25 years earlier she had used the n word which it used to be a free country. only black people can use the n word. use the n word in a private
conversation with her husband after they have been robbed by a bank criminal. that was her crime. why do republican call them liberals. they are bigots. they are not liberal at anything. [applause] the only thing there liberal about our sex and drugs and spending other people's money. [applause] democrats don't care about minorities and the poor. if they had done something in the last 50 years to help these people. what have they done to? incredible libels, this is how the democrats were able to run their campaign. think of what the democrats
diabolical evil welfare program has done to single mothers for generations now in the inner city. they give the mother free apartment, free food, $1500 or so a month and they tell them that's a life of poverty forever. they have taken away any incentive they have to go out and make a life for themselves. and worse, they give them $200 for every child that they produce so they are turning out children who were condemned to a life of poverty and crime. probably a lot of them will die young due to gang violence. that is what the democrats have done. where is the republican who are saying this? why are they saying this every time they make a speech and
every time they confronted debbie wasserman schultz they are saying you are a racist. look at what your party is doing to poor black and hispanic children and mothers in this country. [applause] democrats obviously don't care about minorities and the poor. they get their votes and of course they like to get their votes. if the republicans win black churches are going to be burned and so on and so forth. how did they convince minorities and the poor that they care? let me just take a second here to talk about why cares the most important word. everybody knows that policy issues except paul ryan does understand this, policy issues are so complex, so complex that
you can't make the argument over policy stick and political combat. but people vote for, they want somebody to represent them, somebody they feel they can trust to care about them. "cnn" did an exit poll after the 2012 elections and the questions were if a candidate shares your future -- vision for the future and shares your policy preferences and i can't rememb remember, have the leadership qualities, something like that and cares about you. romney won the first three by 54%. but obama beat him 80-18 grade
80% to 18% on cares about you. asian-americans voted 70% for obama. asian-americans have republican values. they have strong families, strong education, entrepreneurship but they voted for obama because they thought he cared about them. how did the democrats persuade people that they care about them when they don't? obviously one answer is that the republicans collude and are silent about all the terrible things they have done to poor people. maybe you read the stories. during the obama administration the only part of the population that increased word the top 10%. black unemployment is off the
charts. so how do they convince these people that they care? by attacking republicans as racist and selfless and uncari uncaring. [applause] that's how they do it. if you don't attack in politics and go straight for the jugular you are probably going to lose. sometimes the democrats grew up so big like this here and like in the last two years, that they give republicans an election. i believe november we are going to see a republican victory but i don't see that in 2016 because the democratic liars and slanders will be out there in force with hundreds of millions of dollars to spread their lies. because they think they are saving the world and they think
very highly of themselves if you haven't noticed. that is why they are so rude and always interrupting because they see their opponents as evil and they see themselves as saints. republicans are talking about outreach to minority communities. well and good but if you are black and live in the inner city when abusing the republican party stand up for you? outreaches and going to to do any good as long as the republican party doesn't stand up for the underdog in this country. why isn't the republican party proposing a 500 billion-dollar voucher program? why it a voucher i think all the public schools? [applause]
so poor black and hispanic and poor white children for that matter can have a shot at the american dream the way the obama kids do. ways in -- what is the republican party do that? they would get support in the black community and better yet they would get support from middle-class americans. this is how republicans do it. paul ryan is a nice man but he hasn't got a political brain cell. the republican congress is apparently either. they passed the budget. this was an april. which has budget cuts. now what is out for? the republicans in congress can't cut the budget, they?
they can do that until they win the white house. so what are they doing? they are saying what a good boy am i. that's basically it. one of these proposed budget cuts do? i'm just going to pick one item from paul ryan's cuts and that the legal services corporation. the 420 million-dollar government program. he cut the whole thing. i don't know. does it do no good? you couldn't argue this out in a political debate. you don't have time. you have got a presidential debate, what do they have? three minutes? three minutes. what is the legal services corporation? of the government program to provide lawyers for impoverished people who need them so paul
ryan has made enemies of poor people. he has made enemies of at-bats -- advocates for the poor and much more important is made enemies of middle-class americans who are chervil people who want to help the unfortunate. that's all he's done with his budget. i'm all for outreach and saying we are not really so bad. but nothing is going to happen until the republican party stands up for the inner cities of america which earned her the boot hills -- boot heels of the democratic party. one other thing and there are a lot of other things i cover in my book but one that i particularly want to mention is who these people are in the democratic party. i grew up in a communist
community in the early years of the cold war. i have watched that communist community first of all transmogrify itself into the new left which is a communist movement and then take over the democratic party. the culture of the people that i grew up with who thought of themselves as patriarchs while they supported the soviet union in the cold war, who once thought of themselves as clinging to the jeffersonian democrats. so you don't watch the rhetoric, you watch what they do. i never heard my parents refer to themselves as communists although they were card-carryi card-carrying. they were all progressives and they belonged to the progressive party at the time. what are the progressive's?
progressives and conservatives are fundamentally different people. conservatives look at the past and they say this is how human beings behave and if we are going to create policies, we have to take into account real people and how they behave. progressives look to an imaginary future. these days it's called social justice. communism, socialism, it's all the same thing. it's a world where we all get along. ..
obamacare, this is a communist program. their goal is the single-pair system where the government controls everything. but if you look at it f-first of all, let's compare obamacare -- remember nancy pelosi standing in the well of the house, beaming when they passed obamacare. and said, first we pass -- i don't remember which came first, medicare -- probably social security -- then medicare, and now obamacare, and i'm thinking, when she said, social security, bankrupt, medicare, bankrupt. now we're going to triple down with another -- worse, when you have these comprehensive
programs, even though they don't work, social security, if you look it up, and medicare, were passed be vast majorities in both parties. obamacare was rammed through by one party without a single republican vote. it is divided -- we have never been this divided since the civil war and that is a direct result of this president and -- i don't want to -- it's not obama, much as is disease -- despise him. it's not obama. it's the democratic party. to do that is radical. it's not within the american tradition of compromise. -- [applause] >> and they -- this is the archetypal progressive program. the sold it by lying.
when obama ran, if you remember, he said, government -- a government system is bad, and a private system is bad. it's got to be in the middle. no, it doesn't. this is not in the middle. then he said, how did they sell it? a charitable act to cover the uninsured. no, it isn't. its doesn't cover the uninsured. wait to lower healthcare costs. no. it increases healthcare costs. you can keeping your doctor, keep your plan. lie, lie, lie. why do they lie? because the agenda of obamacare was control of the population. everybody will be in a healthcare program the government controls. your life and death -- they already have the movement to get people to die early, not to do it expensive medical procedures
that would extend their life. the government will control your life expectancy. the government will control -- the government will have access to all your information, health, and financial. this is a war on individual freedom. we have lost a major part of our individual freedom. no longer can you choose your health care plan. the government will give you -- now they give you four options, some day it may be one. the options are, at my age, i have to have maternity coverage. the government doesn't -- this is about control, it's a war on individual freedom, republicans don't -- i even heard it attack that way bay republican, unfortunately. the goal of progressives is to control individual life.
that's why -- you know, lenin didn't start out saying, let's kill 40 million people. land and peace. that's what it was about. but, they had plans because they were socialist, and the democratic party is knew socialist party. their plans involve remaking human beings. remaking human beings. and the only way you can accomplish that is bay totalitarian state, and everything the democrats do is an attack on individual freedom, and laying the groundwork for totalitarian state, though they would deny it if you confront them. i'm waiting for republicans to wake up. i've written this book, put it in the hands of every member of
congress, the only -- the only member of congress who called me was senator ron johnson in wisconsin. said he wanted to put it in practice. i had people on the rnc tell me they want to put it in practice. i'll believe it when i see it. as i said, republican party is a party of small business. if you run a business, you are conflict avers. you want customers, you don't want fights. if you're a missionary and you believe that the world is in control of evil corporations and evil republicans, you're always looking for a fight. that is the problem -- the real problem we face. and i hope we can overcome it. thank you. [applause]
thank you, thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. >> never know if i'm talking to long but i see that we have time for questions. >> my name is -- i read your book, absolutely brilliant, buy them for everybody you know. do now though the draft ben carson committee is spending half a million dollars in north carolina and louisiana, personally going after mary lan landrieu and the republican senators there and attacking them about their records and on abortion and on education and on the energy policy, they're driving up their electric bills, on black television and black radio stations and hispanic
radio stations -- >> mary landrieu is a democrat. >> attacking her personally. >> that's good. i'm all for it. i said that's good. i'm all for it. >> i'm told -- >> this is an optimistic report. [laughter] >> i i think ben carson is a wonderful human being. we have had him on our platforms, but politics is a very, very dirty business, and i want to see radon van. -- raysome donovan. carl can handle that. >> you touched on this, but there's always been a disconnect in my mind between people who consider themselves visionary in the van guard of history and on the right side of history, but
they ignore all the historical lessons is that correcting with the french revolution and the reign of terror -- >> everything the democrats are proposing has been tried and shown to be ruinous. ruinous. >> right. >> who couldn't predict an obamacare was going to have huge problems? it's really too bad that we had a supreme court justice who made a terrible, terrible decision. this is an unconstitutional -- the reason that obama violates the constitution weekly is that radicals hate the constitution because it prevents them from doing this schemes, like obamacare. >> in your friends and your family, when they saw the failures of the socialist regimes and the crumbling of the communist regime in russia, did they stop and think they were on the wrong side of history? >> no, what they thought was, now we don't have to defend the
soviet union. we're going to try it again. i kid you not. that's what -- they didn't write it in those terms but that's what they wrote, of course. socialism is dead. long live socialism. >> so it's really historical disconnect in their mind. >> their religious fanatics. that's what progressives are. religious fanatics. there are books about people who are in religions that predict doomsday and the doomsday comes and goes, and how they reconstitute their delusions. you have to understand that the progressive creed functions the same way a religion did, does. it's a consolation that makes you really important. you're re-creating the world. it takes your mind off the fact that you may be vanishing and soing for. it is a religious movement, and,
therefore, facts don't matter. a religious movement in this life. i don't want to say that -- what i would call an -- really about the next life, not about this one. >> well, i'm here to make a statement about you, david. i want to tell you that you are my north star, my guiding light, my touchstone. you are my hero. you have given me the courage. i have only had courage because you had courage. only because of your courage have i had the courage to begin to write. you have mentored me, championed me, you have supported me, and i have to give you my deepest, deepest gratitude, because aim now very fryingenned, i moved out into the public voice and i i'm terrified. i need your words of advice on how you have survived all these
years, punching them in the nose, because i'm going out there to do it. i also want to say, they do these things with language where now they've made vouchary dirty word. that's just one thing i want to bring up. a they made voucher a dirty word. i need to hear what you would say to me as i move out into this nose-punching thing, how to survive these vicious, vicious people. >> first, let me thank you for the kind words. [applause] >> are you going to good home after this and get a dose of reality. for the fight, first of all, it's nothing personal. when you get attacked, the first thing -- when i used to be attacked, it was very hurtful, and it's hurtful if you don't
have a big public presence, because they defame you and there's really no way to strike back. but it's nothing personal. and this is -- i don't know. my optimism, i was born with it. that's what i think. so, my head tells me we're in for a very terrible times. but my heart says, people are waking up and we're going to fight and win. [applause] >> i don't make all the luncheons but i get to the best ones, and may god bless you and give you long life. >> thank you, mark. >> my point is, a few -- the last couple year you had donald rumsfeld as a speaker at this luncheon, and after lurch i was able to ask him a question, which he gave an answer which has some nonpublic information,
which addresses iraq. and i said to him, before we invaded iraq there was a satellite picture on tv of a very large convoy of russian trucks going from iraq to syria. my first thought was, there go the weapons of mass destruction, his answer was this. we thought so, too, but we couldn't prove it. >> well, the iraq war was fought with two few troops. why is that? because ever since the vietnam war, the democrats had waged a war against america, playing a role in the world. between 1973, when we pulled out of vietnam, and 2003, when we -- our troops entered iraq, the united states had been able to put troops on the battlefield for exactly four days in a war,
which was the first gulf war. that is it. so, the way that rumsfeld and bush designed the war, rumsfeld really designed the war, was to avoid democrat attacks for being -- whatever imperialists. they didn't go into the syria for the same reason. by that time the democratic party was in fuel throat, accusing -- you know, when i -- i wrote a book about -- i actually have written three books about iraq. the third one will be out in october. as part of the black book series. but the second book -- i forgot what my train of thought was there -- we were doing rumsfeld and the way -- oh, why they --
yeah. they didn't go into syria because the -- the democrats -- they were exposing national security programs, the left destroying national security programs that protected americans from terrorist attacks, and they got -- and the bush administration was paralyzed. they should have prosecuted "the new york times" and the "washington post" for publishing them, and they should have gone everybody -- they should have been saying, the democrats, this is treasonous, this is treasonous. we're at war. oh, when i wrote the second book on iraq -- now i remember -- i actually took a psychological warfare manual out of -- probably off the internet. and what does it say? says when you're conducting a psychological warfare campaign, the first thing you do is attack the moral character of the commander-in-chief. and that is what "the new york times --" "the new york times"
ran this stupid minor incident at abu ghraib, 60 days, front page story. the holocaust, they start stories about the holocaust six times in six years. six front, pain stories, but if you read them, sometimes they mention the jews in the 14th 14th paragraph. yet abu ghraib was 60 days on the front pages. it attacked the moral character of american leadership, and paralyzed them. this is -- i'm horrified because there's so silence around this. nobody is using these terms that you have heard today from me, about this. yet i don't see theirs -- there's any other term that could be accurately applied. >> another n word is the word,
naziism. i'm convinced that the democratic party is totally soft and totally blind to current naziism, whether it's hamas or hezbollah -- >> yes. >> all of them, and i'm wonder, from a tactical point of view, whether we can't label the democratic opponent as soft on naziism -- >> well, nobody would understand it. i think you're right. islamic naziism is the exact correct term for who they are. but -- the democratic party, the center for american progress, has defamed every -- every everyone who uses the word, islam-o islamophobe.
there should be an investigation of hillary's right hand. and the chief adviser in the state department on muslim affairs, and abane was a political operative for the muslim brotherhood, there's no question about that. >> you touched in a comment while i was in line, saying that the democratic party is a religious movement almost. >> progressive. democratic party -- some principled people, joe lieberman, and actually dick gephardt, did not turn around 180 degrees and attack america's war in iraq. they defended it. so go ahead. put progressivism. if you're guided by an imaginary
future, where you think people ought to live, and you want the government to enforce that future, then you are no different from the communists. you're a totalitarian. >> in other words. my concern is this, having just sent off a daughter, raise ned a very strong conservative home with tremendous values to college, where she is now for the first time registered to vote as an independent, apologizing in effect to us, because she has become a product of what her schooling has unfortunately public school, fortunately public school, because we took advantage of the system to put her into a very excellent educational atmosphere. >> a state school. >> no. she is going to a private school. bard college. and bard is very liberal -- >> my condolences. they're not liberal. they're a communist -- the liberal arts programs of -- the
vast majority of elite american schools are run by communists. >> understood. understood that it's a very progressive school. but that -- i'm taking away from the personal experience to see what i am concerned about for my daughter and her future. she is fiscally conservative, not that she knows so much about fiscal responsibility. she is a good saver. progressive socialist. my concern is the democrats have created a machine that the republicans cannot even approach in seducing young people -- >> yes, this is true. >> not addressed that -- >> the left dominates the entire educational system, and that's why they dominate the media, the court, and you can go on and on. it's a very -- it's a grim situation. >> why haven't the republicans woken up to say this --
>> i conducted a seven year campaign, on modest proposals, that in university courses there should always be two sides at least, the controversial questions, and they should be presented in a fair-minded manner. that was the -- and there should be books assigned on both sides. i got very little support from the republicans. republican party did not take up this campaign, although republicans are -- they must be governors in 30 or 33 states. but i didn't get support, and i -- if you go on the internet you can find me described as a torkamata. the american association of university professors, they're stalinists. that's who they are. and they want to indoctrinate
students, and they fought me so they could indoctrinate students. that was their goal. of course they're winning. however, here's the thing about socialism. it doesn't work. so, at in are some point they bump into reality and have to regroup, and when they bump into reality, we win. [applause] >> as he beamed his wisdom towards' last night, president obama told us that isil was not islamic. >> you mean the islamic state is not islamic. >> doubtless if he had been around at the time of the spanish inquisition he would
have told thus pope wasn't catholic. do you consider this latest intellectual -- is further evidence he has adopted the arab narrative and, as such, isil will never be defeated -- >> i think obama demonstrated, by saying nothing and doing nothing, while half a million christians were expelled from their homes or slaughtered, that he is no christian. no christian. [applause] >> i believe that he identifies with the islamic world. not with america. [applause] >> interesting that you mention that. in a poll taken a couple of years ago, 17% of the american public thought he was muslim, 36% believed he was christian, but nobody believed he was jewish. [laughter]
>> that's a little bit of a hard act to follow. thank you. so much for all that you do, and i so appreciate the way you lead all of us, and have a voice, strong voice, and i'm not going to say anything profound here but i have a concern that runs very deep. i'm sure most everyone here, like myself, has friends, good people, democratic parents, democrat party, feel proud of themselves, liberal, progressive. they have no idea that they are part of a very dangerous totalitarian movement while they go to thing into and vote, and they take -- go into the booth and vote and take in no
information, and they will wake up one day, of course we know it doesn't work -- we know we're going to lose all of our freedoms, one after the other, but our children and grandchildren are going to have to face what we have created and when i say we issue mean collectively, and so i'd like you to comment on that because what do we do about the wave of people that feel they're doing the right thing? >> that's what this book is about. in the book i say, republicans seem, which should be reiterated and every time they talk policy, should be individual freedom. this is what is under assault. this is the way obamacare should have been fought. it's all well and good to talk about the costs of it. i mean, it's important, and the fact they lie about it, but the bottom line is they're taking away you freedom.
you no longer have the freedom to decide what kind of health care you should have. these are questions of life and death, and you are -- it's not complete yet but that's the goal. is to take it away from you. why aren't republicans saying this? and the same thing with the lynch mob. the lynch mob was out there for zimmerman, the lynch mob was out -- and always led by the same lynchers. sharpton and jackson. the lynch mob was out there for those lacrosse players. why aren't we using this language, then your liberal friends might -- -- in the case of zimmerman, spike lee and somebody else, some other celebrity, published their address of sim simple obviously
with the expectation that someone is going to come and do him harm. >> mr. horowitz, thank you again for being who you are. i i'm going to make a statement and then want your comment. i think of this table that you presented of reporters versus democrats, there's another leg how the democrats have corrupted the whole political system, where now even republicans take part, in other words, they get up in the morning to see how they're going to be re-elected, who they going to bring in to bring money. who -- how they going to be power and less and less, and i think -- i believe the democrats corrupted the system and i want to hear your opinion.
the author book sales by 50%. according to the united states census bureau, july book sales fell to 707 million, compared to 745 million in july of 2013. it's the 40th anniversary of robert care row's best seller "the power broker." the book about robert moses took seven years, three pushers and two editors before making it into print. >> stay up to date on breaking news about the publishing world by liking us on facebook at facebook.com/book tv. or visit ore webs ask click on news about books. >> marianne cooper, a sociologist at stanford university. with a report on the american family. joined by cheryl sandberg in