relations between a successor and a predecessor tend to be frosty. and because of the very nature of executive leadership, you come into office, and the idea is i'm going to change the world. i see everything that had has bn done wrong, and now we're going to do it my way, so generally your predecessor tends to be your target. so eisenhower/truman fall into that pattern. eisenhower/kennedy to a lesser extent. kennedy/johnson falls into that pat everybody, johnson/nixon to a much less. carter/reagan, of course, is phenomenal that way and so on. >> guest: don't forget there's a change of parties from democrat to republican, and that exacerbated the changeover as well. but it was at president kennedy's funeral that they really got back together. they rode in the same car, they had a drink before, and i think, i think they got along marvelously with each other there from everything i understand, and i guess it's not
they were different personalities but one can easily imagine harry truman in the abilene high school yearbook, he might have been wearing thick glasses, might have been holding of violent or him i'd been a piano player but he was a midwestern type and ike was a midwestern site. there was an episode in the campaign that i think is amusing that would talk about the strangest between ike and truman and ike's bitterness towards truman, and truman asked him to run for president. about set 10 or so truman goes on, i'm not sure stephenson wanted him there but he goes there and he erupts with the charge that eisenhower is a -- [inaudible] a parent it's a fighting word in the midwest. no one else would have been a deal with it is that eisenhower and truman would have an idea. and apparently this is a fighting word. smaller gaster means something like kind of a turncoat, the
idea that ike at work with democrats and now he's running as republican. truman and how to get under eisenhower's skin, and so he did in 1952. and i think that contributed to the very frosty relations between -- >> truman is from missouri, and there is similar -- when truman began his career working at a bank, working in kansas city, his roommate for the first year was arthur eisenhower, eisenhower's older brother. they lived together in the same room. in the same rooming house. >> in fact there is a document that is deep in the war papers, and i love many historians have seen this, but it was a message in effect being relayed to eisenhower through arthur, his older brother, from harry truman who's been a senator in missouri and it not been elevated to the
vice presidency yet. it was about 1943, maybe early 44 before the political year began. this is from the u.s. senator in missouri to the commander of european forces, supreme, the allied expeditionary force. don't change a thing, you are the inevitable to franklin roosevelt. and as it turns out harry truman finds himself much a role like andrew johnson after the american civil war, somebody who is dropped into this natural succession and, you know him. >> unfortunately would probably go for another hour. we have one minute left. you get 15 seconds of an we will give our panelists 45. 15 each. >> this is for david. [inaudible] the normandy invasion, in particular beforehand his concern about
potential failures? >> i want jean edward smith's help from this. from a grandchild's perspective, and she would notice from a larger perspective. world war ii was a subject that he left alone. as my father put it once, he would accept criticism on anything regarding his presidency, but he could not really bring himself to revisit the controversies of world war ii. i think because so much was at stake. if you think of all the lives that depend on the decisions that were made then, and this is reflected in the character of the eisenhower library, even the roosevelt library where it covers world war ii and so forth. this is a very somber topic. my grandfather simply would not come he didn't want to teach it and didn't want to go back and relive it in any superficial way. by the same token we were encouraged to learn. so this is a veteran experience.
you covered so many clay, grant, what is your reaction? >> well, i think david is the authority on this. 25 years ago david wrote the definitive book on eisenhower's -- eisenhower's -- and. >> it's been an honor to be with jean edward smith is written a terrific book. julie and i fighting over. we've been fighting over it. this is a great account of the entire life, which is to me the greatest challenge i could imagine writing. and my personal congratulations to you, mr. smith. >> finally, mrs. eisenhower, what is the most interesting conversation you ever had with president eisenhower, or one that comes to mind right away? >> i'll get very personal, and this will be very quick. we would go visit him during the 60 campaign after we've been engaged, and every time we went into his room, he would be lying flat there, and he had the heart monitors on, let his spirit was
so great. walk in the door and he was always so, when are you going to become an eisenhower? so that made me feel good. it was very nice. >> david and julie nixon eisenhower, jean edward smith. [applause] >> this is booktv on c-span2. this is the national book festival. and our live coverage from the national book festival continues tomorrow. go to booktv.org to get the full schedule. we will see you then. thank you everyone. >> national syndicate a radio host mike gallagher is next on booktv. he presents a list of social, political and cultural items that he contends liberals love to hate. mr. gallagher's 50 points of discussion range from the second amendment to mcdonald's and flag pins. this is about an hour and a half.
>> thank you so much. thank you. thanks everybody. i can't believe liberals got to the sound system already. i haven't said the first word. are you kidding? i am so honored and so delighted that you could join me tonight as i introduce my new book, "50 things liberals love to hate." this book is about liberals, not democrats, who are often not that much different from republicans in many respects. no, this book is dedicated to that peculiar brand of american who self identifies as a liberal. lives life as a liberal and wishes more of us in america were liberals. think michael moore. you know, think nancy pelosi. think your local college professor. think the driver of that crazy car with all of the bush is
hitler bumper sticker is on the back of the car. think the checkout help with a masters degree in gender studies wearing the headband at your local whole foods store. you get the picture, right? they dominant professions that lead a very large cultural imprint in this great country of ours, professions like journalism, the arts, academia, the music industry and, of course, america's fastest-growing band of entertainers, cirque du soleil acrobats. who are these people who call themselves liberals? and that is such a small tiny group leaves as you began back on our culture and our lives? what motivates them? i am in an excellent position to answer these deep questions because i've been watching liberals closely for over 30 years. i study liberals like jane goodall studies her chimps. [laughter] in their natural habitats.
and without judgment. in silence mostly because we barely speak the same language. i've been tireless in my research. i've lived with liberals. i've humor them, i've teased him, i prodded him. i've imitated them and yes, even loved some of them because some of my best friends are liberals. summer even members of my own family. my commitment to understand liberals sometimes work my good your conservative friends. some even question my mental health, but i read "the new yorker" magazine. i went to see the vagina monologues. i listen to npr whenever i got the chance. i learned everything about the tt fly one could just by tuning into all things considered. [laughter] spent and i even washed my car been footprint as much as a guy who loves big suvs and has owned a home in dallas can watch my carbon footprint. what did i learn from a three decades of tireless research? i learned liberals simply don't love many things about this
world. i learned this been a whole lot of time think about america's faults and how to correct them. about america's ills and now teacher them. liberals love to hate things that most americans love. and this than the rest of their lives endlessly trying to take those things away from us and they're convinced they can do it all because they love us. thus was born this book, "50 things liberals love to hate." i hope you will enjoy it. mcdonald's, or who stole my happy meal? [inaudible] the liberals are at it again but if you build a time machine and if you go back in time far, not for, say 50 years or so and you told the first american you saw that in the future man would walk on the moon. we would all carry video phones the size of a deck of playing cards and the poor americans
would be fat. i guarantee the response would be wow, really? poor people are fat? because the course poor people are supposed to be skinny. they are poor. rich people in america today look like old photographs of four people during the great depression. poor people, the poor people look like the trash or bursting cartoon sketches of the robber barons of the 1890s. now, conservatives see a chubby person, like me, and they think lay off the bread, take this district would it kill you to have a salad once in a while? liberals see that person and think, we should immediately pass laws forbidding this kind of obesity, establish new federal programs and guidelines to crack this bad behavior and great ways to federally subsidized weight loss programs. and who do they blame? mcdonald's. why? because they sell delicious and fattening cheeseburgers and fries along with salads and mcnuggets and a whole lot of other things, even the beloved happy meal is under assault.
by politicians all around the country and buy some weed and call themselves scientists. one group of eight very often vicious unnamed, threaten to sue mcdonald's at the burger giant didn't stop selling happy meals. in typical nanny statist hyperbole, they equally with the burger giant did to kids with child abuse and worse, child molestation. mcdonald's is the strange in a flagrant hand at candy to children, cspi's litigation structure stephen gardner said in a prepared statement. he said it's a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction. it was carter's statement that sounded creepy. the fact is liberals hate mcdonald's because, and its competitors, because they symbolize everything about america below the. our entrepreneurs do, our ability to deliver high quality in a uniform way. and especially our ability to inspire and support businesses that can be franchised across
the globe provide millions of jobs that, and they really hate that last part, mr. jobs. too liberal a job isn't something that is intrinsically useful. too liberal the fact that fully 25% of all working americans, and the percentage is much larger for immigrants under 30, have worked at a mcdonald's or one of its competitors. that's something that truly alarms liberals. it's not clear why exactly. working for large countries is a useful way to lurch time management and customer service. for liberals that is a big red flag. the hatred knows no limit. it is gross, supersize me, writer, actor, activist morgan spurlock, that's his real name, hated mcdonald's so much that he decide to eat mcdonald's food in a mcdonald's food for 30 straight days, three times a day and filmed would happen. surprise of surprises, he gained 24 pounds. i suspect it would've happened if spurlock had decided to eat
at ihop three times a day for a full month. the fact is morgan spurlock wasn't interested in anything vilifying mcdonald's. by did he choose to eat ice cream sundays instead all day everyday and do a documentary about that, or cheese or canned ham? but that would not have made morgan spurlock famous. that would not have made michael spurlock the michael moore of his generation. come to think of it, spurlock should've followed michael moore around all day. [laughter] that would've been fun to watch? the truth is supersize me wasn't as much a document as it was a film star. what really did was supersize morgan spurlock's bank account but as a capitalist i'm all for that, even if he is not. the food fascists love to hate on mcdonald's but many other potential targets are somehow spared. starbucks which shared -- cells
sugar carbohydrate by the great and high caffeinated coffee drink somehow or curiously exempt from the fast food hatred. nor did he get that on a double court upon which is liberals want to start passing laws and any things. if you get fat on mocha latte is with a terrible shot andy currant scone, liberals are delighted to look the other way. but what they both represent as american ingenuity and entrepreneurial risk. what both ray kroc, the founder of mcdonald's, and howard shultz, the founder of starbucks have in common, they took something all americans love and figured out how to serve up faster and better than anyone else. liberals dislike the. job skills, training on actual job? liberals hate that. serving up food is delicious and fattening which requires individuals to exercise a little self-control, personal responsibility, liberals hate that with a passion.
all the hate wrapped up in a cardboard box tucked into a sesame seed bun with melted cheese, a little catchup, special sauce, pickle, maybe some fries on the side, if you're a liberal, you're getting a little hungry right now, i've got bad news for you. you just might be a conservative. [applause] flag pins, let me make a confession. sometimes when i find my self in a really liberal part of town, you know the part of town i'm talking about. yoga studios, lots of electric cars with vegan on board bumper stickers, that kind of thing, i always make sure i'm wearing my american flag lapel pin somewhere really conspicuous. kind of a silly little game i play with myself, and with them, i know. i'm baiting them but for some reason i just can't help us all. liberals really hate is little american flag lapel pins. i'm not sure why they hate the
america flag lapel pin. they hate it more than the american flag it seems to me. in the same neighbors you see the american flag flying high in some places. maybe because the lapel pin is smaller at eye level, it's in your face, his personal. it's in a place it is not usually found rather than the top of a flagstaff or next to a gift. i will be at the can with my purchases or asselin a question and i will see their eyes flicker from my face to my lapel and i will see that look, you know the look i'm talking about, hey, what's that? followed by a lauren. what's wrong with this guy? and wind it up with a shudder of disgust are probably some kind of american free. i bet he's one of those right wingnuts. it's almost like i had a swastika on my lapel. but surely that's not why they hate it, is that? when i wear my lapel pin, and i was to in public, i'm not making a big political statement. i'm not talk of who to vote for in the next election although you have a good idea who i prefer, the american flag lapel pin eyewear and the mayor --
just things this but i'm grateful to live in a country that honors and protects freedom that offers boundless opportunities to our citizens. it does its best to nurture the noblest part of the human spirit. when i were my flag pin i'm guessing when you get right down to it i love my country. maybe that's why liberals hate it so much. they had the vocabulary down. they know how to frame the sentence so sounds like a declaration of patriotic feeling. i love america they will second avenue and i'm a, i love the idea of america. then comes that inevitable but come and the parade of horribles sioux falls but they will start listing all the things that america is done to let them down, all the justices and failings in this country from the moment the pilgrims landed on plymouth rock to the election of george w. bush. i wonder, i have to wonder if
liberals do this with their wives. i love you darling, but that extra few pounds you put on your hips, they weren't there when the first metric they would be great if you lost them. that's the kind of women -- that's the kind of guy women really love. when they see an american flag it automatically put an asterisk next to. yes, but they want to see. yes, but we are too rich and the cars are too big and we drive too much and way too much and where to a american. yes, we saved europe and are a beacon of liberty for the world, but we don't recycle enough and we are too religious to be a really sophisticated country. during his run to the election, then senator barack obama got into more than a couple of flag flaps, remember? that was that seen at any event where all the democrat candidates in on a stage in iowa listened to our national anthem, while facing the american flag all but one had a hand firmly over the hard. guess who. al qaeda again. his initials, b. h. o.
no big deal you say? well, there was the associate press start back in october 2007. that's the one we went out of his way to start wearing an american flag lapel pin. explained his position at a campaign stop at independence iowa, of all places but he said adequate, and ago, my attitude is i'm less concerned about what you went on your lapel than what's in your heart. again, try that with your wife, guys. i love you honey, i love you, sweetie, but i'm not buying it is big diamond a race because i'm less concerned with what you wear on your peers and what's inside your heart. president obama was asked again about the pain in an interview with casey our gtd in cedar rapids, iowa. he said quote the truth is that right after 9/11 i had a pin. show after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the iraq war that became a substitute for i think true patriotism which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. those are his exact words.
yesterday said they. it kept getting worse. the pain he said he didn't like he actually used to like about a foot in america started liking it and so he stopped liking it. in that interview he actually refer to the american flag lapel pin as -- >> i won't wear that pin on my chest instead of going to try to tell the american people what i believe will make this country great. and hopefully that will be a testimony for my patriotism. >> you heard it right. you heard it right. he called it that 10. a little white bill clinton referred to that woman, remember? but not to fear. and not to were the president obama came around. that pain he stopped when because it didn't really show what was in his heart, he is now wearing near his heart today just about every day. it's one of those cheesy things you just have to do as president i guess.
when he returns to civilian life, soon i hope rather than later -- [applause] i think, i suspect you think he will like most is ditching that a knowing little pin once and for all. maybe he could replace nations flag pin. that simple the american flag pin on the so, the thing is no better than the nickel. i'm just standing there with a tiny little american flag on my lapel minding my own business announcing in the quietest most resurgent way possible that i'm grateful to live in the united states of america. that's all. gratitude for the sacrifices of my forebears. gratitude for the opportunity this country a force. gratitude for the men and women
who served to fight in the military probably. gratitude for being a part of this amazing, ennobling experience representative democracy. blood, liberals hate the americans event is just okay. not good, not great. serving unexceptional. just okay. conservative women, mouthy ladies. to see some truly a lover i want, in your next conversation with a liberal, i was thinking about something sarah palin said the other day.
stanback. led to the huffing and puffing and sighing and moaning begin to get as much as you finish the set by the way. you could say sarah palin likes chocolate ice cream or sarah palin thanks panda bears are cuddly. the result is going to be a kind of deranged automatic rejection of anything sarah palin says or thinks. try with ann coulter. same reaction. actually try with any well-known female who is unapologetically nonliberal and you get the identical level idling with just absolute amazement. liberals hate now the conservative women. they hate this new generation of independent conservative brash talking woman that rejects the 1970s era feminist dogma. it's insulting that for all the wonderful things are done for women some of them just reduce to show any gratitude.
liberals have worked so hard to break down the barriers of sexism that when sarah palin burst onto the scene with her unique brand of cheerful conservatism, they had no choice but to attack her for her looks, her hair, her outfits, her education, for her children, for her make it. for a group of folks who try so hard to eliminate sexism from the national discourse, liberals sure know how to use it when they need to. is the same width ann coulter. she is attacked rightly for her looks, her hair, her weight. notice the remarkable improvement over the years of the physical charms of women into political run. consider for a moment -- one of the first feminist to emerge in the early 1960s. now fast-forward 2012, considered conservative writer ask the cop. quite a difference, what you say? there was nothing to match the media and his reactions to
sudden ascension of sarah palin. and taken to the fact she was a popular sitting governor of the largest state in america, the sudden ascension of barack obama from utter obscurity bothered no one in the mainstream media. the men had a resume so thin that even doublespaced with extra-large font could barely take up a page. and my crackerjack research team got their hands just on that document, on barack obama's resume. i can 27 when he was looking to ditch his senate gig and move up in life. let me read a little bit for you. objective, leader of the free world. experience 2005-2007 u.s. senator. in the job description hero, talk a lot, voted wrong on law. 1997, 2004 illinois state senator. he wrote in that job he talked a lot and voted present the law.
1991-1997, university chicago and other places is hero for his employees and elicit his job as constitutional law professor and civil rights attorney. he described his work this way. talked a lot, but a memoir about my identity crisis. he was a little sketchy about the years 1985-1987 think it was hard to remember who he actually worked for but he did say he was a community organizer. his job description was described, organize people, trained people to organize. for education you've listed columbia university and harvard law. he listed his grades, sat and lsats as not available. is interests, basketball, marxist literature, writing about myself, talking about myself, making money, oh, and saving the world. and yet the mainstream media lo and behold fell in love with this highly qualified applicant. and fell in love with him because they like the trifecta of the first black male liberal president more than they like
the first wife him a conservative vice president trifecta. it did hurt you went to the colleges of mainstream media a door. columbia and harvard. even if we have no idea how we got into either. sarah palin at in all kinds colleges college and she was a sportscaster, got married, had kids, helped her husband. ran against a political machine in the state, and one. becoming the first woman to serve as governor in the state's entire history. but the sisterhood and he went after her. rather than swoon and font like you did with president obama, the attack. katie couric tried her best to derail paid. she's been a folder with the candidate all the note should capture in some kind of a low. she did but she asked governor pena what papers read and she didn't in the proper names. indeed, she didn't in any. few public figures publicly admit to which newspapers they read or what tv or radio show they can do. this was different. it was sarah palin. katie couric had bush won and through center under the
sisterhood bus. can you imagine if she had exhibited the same zeal with president obama? imagine if she spent all day with him and asked a few tough questions like how many soldiers are there any battalion, senator? after some stammering, katie could've followed up, senator obama you're asking this question to make a commitment in chief ingenuity how many men are any battalion? she could have easily added, i'm sure john mccain knows that answer. and so does sarah palin because she ran the alaskan national guard but that didn't occur. what a few moments that would have been. when palin did get the nomination u.s. i katie couric diane sawyer, barbara walters and a pack of shrill shrews on the view -- [applause] okay, elizabeth hassell back
doesn't count. would have at least pretended to celebrate the announcement, but the streets are gun toting pro-life, pro-drilling, produces, sarah palis every liberal woman's worst nightmare. they hate ann coulter for the same reason. michel falcon, and all the rest of them. they hate him because they don't comport to the official liberal version of womanhood. if only these mouthy women would just go away. luckily for us they ain't going anywhere. [applause] the south races rebels and rednecks, in 1767 jeremiah dixon charles mason to a map dividing the american colonies into the northern region and the southern region. since that time the mason-dixon line as prima serve and marketplace for the north and to the south begins. more accurate way to know for certain what exactly you're. it into a car, drive here, go east and south. at some point someone will start calling you sir or meant to
that's when you know for certain you're in the suspect southerners are just polite like it. they have a million different ways to say think and the use of all. my favorite for the record is appreciate you which our young men say to me at a gas station result outside olympic what he said was appreciate you, sir. southerners are polite and thoughtful. they say police and thank you. they are tradition, god, liberals positively despise and it really is too. liberals hate the south. liberals begin with a southern accent is another way of saying look at me, i'm a racist. when liberals are a southern dialect what they really here is a, better brace itself, i'm about to talk about jesus. when liberals encountered a yes, sir or no, ma'am. , what a little rain adheres is hey, i'm a slow witted hillbilly without a thought in my head. or teeth.
think he thought meets mississippi burning meet sling blade. and to sort of get the picture of the south inside the average liberal said. the american south is a dark scary place filled with klansmen and spooky backwoods inbred, trailer parks and violence captures. from the movies and tv shows they make regularly, to the thinly veiled arrogance of the pages of the newspapers, liberals cannot imagine the south of anything other than kind of thinking best of what. if your car breaks down or you're on a rafting trip with friends, nothing good can happen in the south. once that creepy kid with the banjo starts playing, it's all over. all bets are off. is easy for liberals to characterize the south that way because so few of them ever go that way unless it's to take a sneering ironic trip to graceland i made a quick stop on
which to hilton head island. if liberals did somehow take a wrong turn and ended up driving to the real south, the south i know, they would get a very different, and to them, disturbing picture of the modern american south. maybe that's what liberals need to do to understand the country they seem to make so much. it would be an eye-popping surprise for liberals to accept the modern south as excellent restaurants, major international banks, research centers and top rated universities. they would be a maze be a maze is amazed how up-to-date it all is. they have dentist down there and cable tv. if we could somehow forcibly march the urban smug liberal through, say, mississippi we could stop for lunch at one of the many delicious places to eat and show them something about by never expected to see. lack and white folks eating together. not just in the same restaurant we been together often at the same table. it happens a lot in the south. go to restaurant in birmingham or jackson and you'll see a racially integrated crowd. it will be diverse to use a word that liberals love.
go into a restaurant and some other more liberal part of america, not so diverse. it would disturb liberals to realize the south is a heck of a lot more integrated in the so-called sophisticated coast cities. it's not members or mobile that is stuck in segregation. it's l.a., new york. impossible, the liberals will cry. for the past decade african-americans from the north have been moving south in huge numbers. it's a total reverse of the great migration of the 1940s and the 1950s when large parts of the southern black population moved north to places like chicago, detroit, new york. blocks are going back to the south to impossible, the liberals cry. don't do know the south is full of rednecks and racists? what black families now to the contrary is the south is much better jobs and a better economic future, and more important into better place to raise their kids. kids don't learn to say thank you and yes, sir and no, ma'am. integral parts of the country or
liberal public schools. they learn that in places like mod coming and green for. the mason-dixon line still shows up en masse but these days a lot of americans it's better to be on the southern side. how much better? numbers don't lie. according to the latest census figures the south was the fastest growing region in america over the last decade, up 14%. that's why factories open in southern states like alabama. that's why bmw opens facility and south to london. that's why atlanta, georgia, is a hub of commerce. the american liberal isn't -- and his blighted neighborhood looks upon all of this. he hates the south like an east berliner hated west berlin. throughout the were with seen this time and time again. havens of entrepreneurialism and individual liberty have always outperformed the statist neighbors. whether it was west germany leaping over east germany, hong kong and taiwan putting china to shame, or singapore outshining impoverish malaysia.
this has been universal truth of history. the south fulfills that same role today. that's why liberals hate the south. [applause] liberals hate the south because what they believe is an assignment of ignorance has defeated them in affluence and sophistication. they can barely stand it, but there is so. and it lies in a once in virtue i've yet to mention because much as bill of rights the south, in in even a little has to find a place to live and work and that's where southern hospitality drives the final minute into the dream. because if the liver packs up and leaves, he knows with dread and soon he will hear the words that will drive a dagger into his most precious hopes, howdy, neighbor.
[applause] success, or everyone gets a trophy. liberals hate success for a number of reasons include the fact they hate competition in everything that comes with it. to a liberal there's no such thing as true competition others no such thing as learning a valuable life lesson from losing. those who say that two plus two equals five of those who fight for your points and editing must be told they are not wrong or that they lost because to do so would hurt their precious self-esteem. everybody gets a trophy mindset that is when the once great american little league. think about it. if everyone is special to them what you're saying is now one a special. think about that for a moment. if their obsession with stamina failed, liberals have stamped out close success. it's a bigger. it can't happen. back in 2010, i spend a few days am a readership talking about an
article i read in the new york times about high school graduations and the issue of valedictorian's. of the victorians an issue you might be wondering? if some valedictorian go on a crime spree? do they go on an alcohol binge? no. it turns out shockingly the whole bunch of schools in america think that having just one valedictorian is mean-spirited and not very inclusive. so they are instead now having multiple valedictorians. before i proceed with this story, i want to get a definition of the term object-oriented the student is having the highest rank in a graduating class that delivers the valedictorian address at the commencement exercise. when i went to school there was one valedictorian. that person had the highest grades. been a was the salutatorian. that person of the second highest grades. they both made speeches on graduation day. really bad speeches. then there was me, it was a miracle i got any grades at all. no threat of me getting any
speeches. flash forward to 2010, jericho high school in long island, new york, in a "new york times" story. it turns out one valedictorian was simply not do at this particular school so they went with, wait four, seven instead. seven valedictorian strip what was the explanation? was the move pushed by the parents, students? it was one guy, joe, the principal at jericho high. he didn't like having just one valedictorian. no, no, no. he said when did we start saying we should limit the honors only one person gets the glory, he asked "the new york times" reporter? well, principle, americans have been saying it for hundreds of years. "the new york times" story got more interesting but it turns out public school administrators across the country are beginning to side with poor old joe. here's how the new york times explained the reasoning behind the disturbing new trend. vegetable say recognizing multiple valedictorians reduces pressure and competition among students and is a more equitable way to honor achievement,
particularly went number one and number five may be separate but only the smallest fraction of a grade from sophomore science. liberals do things like this with beloved traditions like the valedictorian. then they decide for all of us out to great more equitable ways to honor achievement. i wondered as i was reading the article why stop at in a? what about the student who came really close to an a? do want to -- you want to cause them grief? what about the b- students? don't they deserve to be valedictorians, to? it turns out lines high school in colorado agrees. they had 10 valedictorians last year. and stratford high score in the suburbs of houston pretty much agrees with this and senate as well. they honored 30 valedictorians. 6.5% of the entire class in 2010. they all got gold on records.
30 valedictorians to i thought i was mad at principal joe. not just the public schools. this disease is spreading into a publicly traded companies. take general motors, please. actually americans to take gm, didn't they? we bailed out the car company and we still own a huge chunk. take the big banks. can't have them fail because way beyond keeping score at the little league games, liberals hate success. if they have their way, we will all be playing a scoreless game of life, scandinavian style with cradle-to-grave entitlements that assure little variation in income with little, if any, variation between success and failure. the second amendment, now listen, liberals are not crazy about most of what's in the u.s. constitution but it's safe to say what they hate the most is the second amendment.
so let's start with the very complicated lengthy text of the second a minute of the constitution. this could take a very long time. a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, rights of the people to keep and -- to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. [applause] >> wait a minute. that's a? 27 words? that's what they are so exercised about, 27 words in english can't be all that hard to understand. but they managed to confuse the heck out of liberals. when those words liberals in all kinds of possible interpretation it they see ways to regulate and ban guns and rifles. to register all gun owners. to prohibit sales. in other words, the 27 word sentence, the keywords of which are security, free state and right of the people, and shall not be infringed. liberals see in those words ways
to undermine security, constrained state and infringed the rights of the people. it's pretty impressed by cafta had to liberals but when they set their mind to it they can avert just about anything. let's make a way to the big one, shall we? on militia they will say we call it the national guard. and the national guard is a great thing. nice to know that some liberals are supported all of a sudden of the national guard since they often disparage them we talked about president george w. bush's service in a branch of the guard during vietnam era time. what the founders were talking at was the necessity of raising a militia at any time which would require that citizens supply their own weapons. the founders knew -- more effective than weapons get into government controlled armored. the framers also like the idea of a bunch of states, liberals hate that, too. another chapter in the book. each with its own idiosyncratic touches, all linked by a republican government. they imagine a united states with the citizens of the
individual states have a fair amount of say about what goes on inside their borders. it's possible it opens up the possibility for certain states to go to ban r-rated certain weapons as some have done. the framers seem to encourage this difference between the states. liberals hate that, of course, because it means with certain states like utah and texas might be conservative and have right wing laws. it also means that crackpot lefty states like massachusetts or vermont commended for his eminence for everyone if they want. that's not enough for liberals. billy cundiff endeavor like is the freedom to make you do what they tell you to do. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so i could have a howitzer in my front charged? you right wing gun nuts are crazy. yes, i'm sorry but shall not be infringed isn't all that take a phrase, isn't? just to go over one more time, shall not be infringed as in you can't infringe it.
or maybe slowly to liberals it is what it is. we all know the howitzer in the front or argument is complete off topic anyway because now is on a regular and howitzers in the yard. what they do have is rifles and handguns that keep first for. those are what liberals want to take away. is why they want to take them away, to protect us. that's right, to protect us. nice of them, isn't? here you were thinking you could protect yourself. according to the last count, about 30,000 people die annually in gun related accidents. remember that number, 30,000 annually in gun related incidents. about 45,000 die in car crashes. about 37,000 died from poisoning. about 20,000 a year die from unintentional falls. the framers didn't say that guns were not dangerous. they are.
especially to invaders. but they were necessary. that's what they said. that's what liberals hate the most about the second amendment. it's necessary. it reinforces the constitutional notion of a free and sovereign people. citizens of a country, or to put it much, much better, well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. pretty much every single word in that sentence is what gives liberals the heebie-jeebies. on the other hand, 20,000 people die every year from unintentional falls? i know, maybe the framers should ban lattice. the simple fact is freedom is dangerous. in his book, more guns, less crime, john locke proved in place of with our more guns enhance of lawful citizens as less crime. it prevents all kinds of crime. anyone who knows anything knows this, criminals are cowards but they don't like a fair fight.
criminals love picking on the vulnerable because they have a advantage by philip taking a little old navies and i clerked to work alone. but again, the great equalizer. a single mom with a gun is scary than an nfl linebacker without one. now, that's not just a legal theory either. take the make my day mom. her story was one most of us in america truly love. except liberals of course. 19 january 2010, a couple of punks decide to sell to the beginning of the new year by breaking into the trailer with a young single mom, 18 year old. she had recently lost her husband and children about immigrant with a 33 -month-old son in blanchard oklahoma. that's exactly why the bad guys chose her because she was alone with her baby. it turns out sarah have some company in the house the thugs in anticipate. their names were smith and wesson.
sarah was packing bruschetta shotgun and pistol and she wasn't afraid to use either one of them to defend herself or her baby. she called 911. >> i have to guns in my hands but is it okay? >> you have to do whatever you can do to protect yourself. i can't tell you that you can do that, but you do which have to do to protect your baby. >> you do what you have to do. she killed one of those men. the other ran away, a frightened coward. [applause] now, fortunately for sirica she lived in a gun from a conservative state like oklahoma. not an anti-can state like massachusetts. liberals don't care what the constitution says but they don't care about facts. they sort i don't care about the status of this world and the right to keep and bear arms. their right to protect themselves. but the right of the criminal trying to rob sarah? well, that's another story. the suburbs, little pink dollhouse i is and little dull
lives. ask a liberal why he hates the suburbs and they will spit out a bill of particulars. they've always hated malls of course. jcpenney, macy's, you've got to be kidding. people shop at those wretched places? that's nothing compared to the content first to post but i know what you think about the if every best buy, a plein air bread, a bed bath and beyond, a target all them a place, who needs anything else? give all the necessities in one place. you get to enjoy the fresh air as you walk from shop to shop. some strip malls even have a buffalo wild wings so you can snag a drink while you're why spend an hour picking out a new shower curtain. what's not to love? mention wal-mart and watch them have an aneurysm. you should hear some o of the things they said about the west again -- that rest of the strip malls. amazon is with you within because it's on the internet and liberals are not through with
anything on the web. they hate the way suburbanites shop, too. mindlessly slurping up whatever some giant corporation puts in front of them like a drooling of latvian dogs. unless of course the company would be apple in which case they have to have whatever white plastic gadget just cannot because it's totally going to change the world, man. donating to the start of the suburban cuisine. you want to scare the heck out of liberals? asked them to go out, tell them to meet you at 6:00 at the red lobster. they will turn green from nausea. or worse. it's a scientific fact that liberals obsess over their grub. the overlap between food network viewers and obama voters is pretty much total. only creates owners were reliably more democratic in 22008 election cycle. to store. i took a little tournament at it in one after he left his
fabulous manhattan co-op to visit me out in the suburbs of long island. i didn't want to freak them out so to come to dinner at a rob us. barabas is -- analyzing every pitch, every ingredient. when awakened over. my that he was ready. he starts going to is the salmon farm raised or fresh cod? those mashed potatoes, what kind of cream are used in the with the disc with a substitute? mind you this waiter was a kid from a local high school my the 19. over massey clearly fail the quiz and my buddy wound up ordering a plain piece of margarita. he barely touched it. they just have too much time and i picked the reason it too much time on hands is the same reason they want to live in a city and not out in the suburbs like the rest of us. they don't have kids oftentimes.
the suburbs were greater around a single organizing principle made easy to make life easy for families. driver under suburbs sometime and play count the main event. liberals hate those, too, by the way. why do people drive those monstrosities? it's easy, because they work. it makes it easy to haul the kids to soccer practice and the mall. they are safe consider the precious cargo. the suburbs were designed to be is ruthlessly functional as the minivan for the same reason a crummy chain restaurant because you can shake under take three kids from their, why do with strip malls? because we have to shop for provisions come pick up extra flashing for the role. we have to get trevor a new backpack without losing an entire weekend. we have began to some to get you. would have to mow the lawn. there's church on sunday and if we work really hard and were super efficient we might just, might get to watch a half of a football game later in the afternoon in our red grooms or
our main case. it's not pretty. it's not sophisticated but that's what suburban life is. people move to the suburbs to have families to we stopped checking into foursquare. we stop spending our weeknights out with friends our weekends exploring bistros and going to wine tasting but we choose to do something that is we believe much more important. is slightly less glamorous. the irony is we don't begrudge our liberal hipsters defense the fabulous life. in fact, we we did it on his, we kind of independent. the admiration is mutual. they hate us for our suburban life. the houses are cookie-cutter and if it is offensive enemy bands stink. when you tell your little venture moving out to the burbs, they trigger lifestyle choice with utter disdain. you get more understanding and respect if he told them you were changing their name to chantelle and you're getting a sex change operation. i'd like to think that deep down
hostility that a single friends have about art drab lives is this. they know they're missing out on something, something real, something deep and profound. i'm talking about the secret gratitude and pride one takes in raising another human being, to take care of that person from holding that person, discipline that person. loving that person unconditionally the way god loves all of us. and yes, occasionally having to bail the person out of jail. been there done that. it's not always fun, not always great, but it's important raising a family and its real. desiccate anymore real changing poop from a child's were in? it's all about families. it's about loving someone other than yourself. it just doesn't get any better than that. [applause]
>> liberals love to hate babies, or my little miracle seat, walker and any lefty hipster neighborhood in austin, brooklyn our booklet, the first thing you'll notice is the babysitters. liberals love expensive strollers. in the $2000 range. one company makes a line complete with mosquito netting, presumably for those leisurely strolls along the amazon you're going to take. and if suspension system that one would suspect from a range rover. or have photos off-road adventures with a newborn. the 2012 deluxe stroller series is a marvel of modern store technology. as you walk around the left wing monoculture enclaves you see guys in scars, in four genes pushing contractions around young moms with yoga maps of the iran debate inside asking
frantically kid, kid, would you like the rest of the turkey wrap? came up, caleb? soon little caleb will be going off to progressive preschool. motto, we don't teach them how to read. we teach them how to knit. and before you know they will be be playing scoreless soccer and fretting about the climate change. feed them organic food and in general carry them around in baskets to the little angels are ready to head off to college with alert all about about contemporary transgendered poetry and how to be able to get a schedule to sleep until the state have mondays and fridays off. liberals love kids. it's babies they're not so crazy about, especially the inconveniently unborn kind. the unborn baby is currently the most troublesome and despise character on the liberal horizon. this little creature cannot win. if he is born he will condemn
his mother to poverty and increase the population the liberals of course are always worried about population growth so takes all of the babies to pay for the entitlements they so adore. let alone to perpetuate civilization. buthat poor girl will die of sepsis or worse. the idea that they're someone to adopt and care for the baby, that there's another way, a more humane care and compassion and life-affirming is just not part of their decision. the only solution for liberals is to make abortions safe, legal and taxpayer-funded. got a problem? you want to kill mom? here's the heart of the product babies confuse the heck out of liberals. on the one hand, to represent what every believing far lefty thinks about people in general, that were helpless were helpless, and covenant and not very smart. they need supervision. they need to be under control of a hopefully be nine-liter.
on the other hand, thinking about babies, especially the inconveniently not yet born time, bring some of complicated baggage. as an economist steven has shown the rise in abortions among the black community since roe v. wade had a course but an positive effect on crime rates in the inner-city. what the proof was a simple and ugly fact. if fewer black babies in 1970 spent fewer young black men in the '80s and '90s and two young men in general. means crime rates go down. seen from a straight sisters at alaska, abortion is a social good too many. there's no limit to the good that can come if we kill off the problem groups like young men before they're born to think of the benefits. less crime, fewer accidents, less lousy television and a whole lot less really awful music. so the price we pay for killing off these messy young boys is coming off those cute baby
girls, too. those little angels have problems of their own like teenage pregnancy. what better way than afford those babies. liberals don't like kerry but rather controversial thesis of doctor, but then there's lots of things that are true that liberals don't like hearing. the trick is to ignore what they say, concentrate on what they do. there is no more doting person than a pregnant liberal. in the same hipster neighborhood you will find prenatal yoga classes, odds for new ag oils for running into the pregnant belly, exotic prenatal diet books, special music cds for baby to enjoy in utero. ..
>> what sexual information will be given out, and it's hands off that nonbaby. that as yet unborn nonbaby fetus is merely the property of its host. let's face it, it's a sad, small, depressing view of what life really is and what life means and from whom it comes. birth is a miracle, it's unexplainable, it's uncontrollable. liberals hate those things which is why they hate babies. it's a grim world for the average lefty. that's why they love to use the world sustainable for everything. sustainable energy, food, communities. for them, things don't get bigger and better, they just get sustained. [laughter] life, liberty and the pursuit of sustainability. [laughter] doesn't have much of a ring to
it, does it? maybe that's why birthrates in liberal communities are so low and why birthrates among bible-believing communities are so high. [applause] one side things can get better, the other side thinks things stink and should stay the same. to be for babies is for real hope. [applause] to be for babies is for the future, to be for babies is for better days ahead. [applause] walmart! what's wrong with everyday low prices? [laughter] sam walton, a shop owner in bentonville, arkansas, had a big idea. if he could somehow keep his costs dependably low, we could undersell his competition. with that competitive advantage, he could expand by expanding, get more goods even more cheaply and sell them at a deeper discount. you know how this american success story ends, right?
walmart, barely 50 years later, is one of the world's largest and most successful companies. it employs over two million people and delivers low-cost goods to consumers in a reliable and consistent way. how do they do it? well, they apply efficiencies in purchasing and shipping, squeezing -- sometimes ruthlessly -- costs out of the supply chain in order to turn those savings into lower prices for you and me. that means lower prices for 100 million americans a week. that's about a third of the country. a global insight study in 2005 revealed that walmart saves the average american family nearly $2500 a year. now, that barely covers the annual sushi budget for your average city liberal. [laughter] but it's a really nice vacation for your average american family. how do they manage to keep the costs down and keep the customers coming? former walmart ceo lee scott appeared on charlie rose a few years back, and charlie asked him what it was like to work for
sam walton. scott had a terrific story about walton. >> when i didn't perform, sam would have a direct conversation with you. >> what's a direct conversation? >> well, he'd go around the room on a friday morning meeting, and there's 20 people in that room in 1980 -- >> this is a year after you joined. >> i'm sitting in that meeting, and these are all the officers of the company, and sam would maybe have a p, and l, profit and loss statement that wasn't particularly good. and he'd get to you, and when he was mad at me, he'd point his finger and say, scott, your drivers' uniform costs were up 30% this month, what's going on there? and you better know. the interesting thing was the whole cost was, like, $1500 -- >> but that amount of money meant something o him. >> you're darn right it did, and taught me that meant a lot. >> talk to that person about sam walton's dedication and commitment to pass along savings to customers, and it changes
nothing with them. talk about walmart's delivery system, you'll go a big, fat yawn. because liberals hate walmart for their own reasons. walmart is a giant and relentless corporation that delivers prices so low and a selection so broad that it's hard for smaller, local retailers to compete. a lot of them do have to close. well, the same could be said for what walgreens and cvs did to tarp says. but the walmart haters, they give all the others a pass because there's walmart's unceasing focus on driving costs down which means it's tough on hourly wages and tight with benefits. but not that much tighter than the rest of the industry. the fact is that walmart pays only slightly less per hour than the average retailer, $11.75. many of walmart's workers are part timers when a time that any job is better than no job, and a job may lead to a better job even in management, liberals should thank walmart. the company employs a staggering
1.4 million americans. that's a remarkable 1% of the u.s.' total work force of 140 million. but liberals and their allies in big labor unions tap out a steady drum beat of criticism of walmart and its labor practices. walmart has raised the standard of living for every american without question and employed all kinds of us, liberals hate all of this. they don't value efficiency and progress, they certainly don't appreciate bringing low-cost consumer goods to the heartland. liberals don't care if there's a discounted flat screen television that you want. liberals don't think you ought to want it in the first place. what they really hate about walmart is what it represents, the full energy of a free market, capitalist enterprise. [applause] that's right. walmart delivers the engine of economic growth, low cost, lots of choice, good service, tight management. think about those words for just a moment. low cost, choice, service, management. the only enterprise that's large err than walmart is the --
larger than walmart is the federal government. [laughter] does it offer any of those things? is any big government program offering a fraction of the efficiency and service walmart a offers every day? who would you rather delivering your health care, the federal governmentr walmart? [laughter] who would you have running the school system, the local teachers' union or walmart? who would you rather have delivering the, for heaven sakes? liberals hate walmart because walmart works, and liberalism doesn't. [applause] algae. [laughter] now, one of the greatest environmental tragedies of recent times is the bp oil spill in the gulf of mexico. oil leaked into the pristine, crystal clear waters of the gulf at an incredible rate of over two million gallons per day. the result was an environmental
wasteland, a coastline from louisiana to florida, it killed nearly all the sea birds in the region, destroyed the fisheries, rendered the beaches hazardous, unusable and took a once-vibrant and bustling region of the south and turned it almost overnight into an 'em my ghost town. -- empty ghost town. oh, wait a minute, that's not what happened. that's what the environmental liberals said was going to happen, and thanks to the hysterical drama types in the media, that's what we all thought as the oil cascaded into the gulf. that's what cnn's anderson cooper staked his entire show on. a breathless anderson cooper aired his nightly broadcast from new orleans, from the gulf coast and not because he cares one bit about the people in that region. he only visits the region when there's something in it for anderson cooper. those people who make their livings on the rigs in the gulf of mexico, the people who run the restaurants and hotels from glock si to the florida panhandle, they're not anderson
cooper's kind of people. he wouldn't be caught dead vacationing in the gulf shores. he's more of a martha's vineyard, south amp hampton kind of guy, or maybe venice beach. [laughter] but for weeks on end, there was anderson cooper every night on the gulf coast, eviscerating bp, rooting for the oil to wash up on the shores and ruin the place. that's right, anderson cooper was literally rooting for the oil. indeed, he was so invested in a bad outcome for bp and a good outcome for himself, a peabody aworld, maybe an emmy, that what he was actually rooting against was the home team. he was rooting against the people he pretended to care about. he was hoping against hope that the bp spill would be the worst ecological disaster in world history. he was urahning for those oil-soaked -- yearning for the oil-soaked spots to multiply. when that story didn't pan out, he had to be disappointed.
when the carnage didn't come, he must have been down and depressed. two years later here is what we know, and not because anderson cooper did some extensive, follow-up reporting. the imufl coast is vibrant and gusing, the water is clear. families still vacation there, especially on the beautiful barrier islands. the fish are back, the shellfish too. so, um, what happened, anderson? [laughter] where was this apocalypse you promised? well, as it turned out, crude oil leaks into the gulf waters pretty much all the time. it's a natural result of having so much oil under the surface of the sea floor, that it seeps out. that's sort of the thing about oil in the gulf. there's so much oil under the gulf, it wants out matchally which is why oil companies are there in the first place. the result of this entirely natural occurrence is the gulf has a natural mechanism to absorb and disperse huge quantities of crude oil,
saltwater and algae. the saltwater disperses the oil clouds, and the algae feeds on them. nifty handy work by a power much higher than the epa. [applause] so two year later the oily wasteland never happened, it's almost hard to find any sign of the oil leak in the region unless you count the billions and billions of dollars poured into the area by a remorseful bp. and what was the reason? armies of environmentalists and college kids combing the beaches with paper towels and sponges, skimmers and equipment battling the oil sludge? no, it was saltwater and algae. so why the hyperdramatic, anderson? why the tears and wails and gnashing of thies? why is it we're treepted to a mellow drama of overacting from the left? it was like one of those scenes from the arab streets with the women in the bier cas making that noise. [laughter]
that's what environmentalists sound like. [laughter] every time somebody spills something, you know? [laughter] why, why do they do it? why do they react? power. it's all about the power. because if you want to increase your power, the first thing you need is a really fat crisis. you need to scare everybody into thinking this is really it. the gulf of mexico's going to be a dead zone. we've only got three years left to drive our cars. that the earth is turning into a sauna or an ice cube, take your pick, they never seem to know which. [laughter] only can you pass more laws and regulations. for liberals there's only one solution to every problem, there's only one way to solve an energy crisis, give them more power. which is why they absolutely hate god's algae, because the algae doesn't want any power, it just wants to eat the oil. [laughter] [applause] the military are monsters in
uniform. picture this scene. you're a happy autocrat ruling your people with the be benevolence and wisdom that only you possess. it's not easy being an autocrat, sometimes you have to crack the whip, sometimes it's necessary to throw your people into some camps, break up their families or eradicate the occasionally village. this is the price of order whether you're progressing toward fascism, islamism or that special latin american dictatorship you can call your very own. it's the power of your state that makes everything possible. then one day your whole world is turned upside down. you've done something to anger the great united states of america. to your surprise, there are american soldiers everywhere, they're destroying statues, liberating your people, and your people are joining the americans in hunting you down and bringing you to justice. as y, the formerly great despot of dirkastan, you realize
your destiny has been sealed by the young men and women wearing the uniform of the united states of america. that's -- [applause] the liberal vision, one of centralized control, state domination and the suppression of individual liberty in the name of progress is often the same as that of many of the autocrats our military has crushed over the years. c.s. lewis once remarked that the most oppressive of tyrannies is the tyranny that is exercised for the good of its victims. and this describes the project of liberalism to the tee. liberalism is the contention that all governance and policy ought to be judged not by its outcomes or its means, but by its intentions. that's the core ethic of the liberal. it gives us the key to the real reasons the liberals hate the military. the first is the u.s. military's longstanding record of smashing the liberal project on every continent in every era. when americans destroyed german militarism in world war i, liberals understood that we crushed a model of centralized,
aggressive state control that they themselves aspired to. when the americans again crushed the axis in world war ii, liberals knew with those powers died a version of hierarchical governance that they not so secretly revered. and when the american military under the despised ronald reagan laid to rest once and for all the hope of communism, liberals were once again deprived of a model of totalitarian control, the liberal trained at brown or williams no doubt has a meltdown at the concept of aggressive america failing to respect the multiculturallist ideas that provide the bay cyst for their whole -- basis for their whole world view. the american soldier demonstrates with the rifle and the mre the intrinsic superior my of ours. where the liberal pays lip service to mores and beliefs, the american soldier every day forcibly eliminates tyranny. and where the liberal subscribes to a creed of american impotence
and our inability, rather, to change the world, the american soldier demonstrates that american power changes the world for the better every single day. peace -- [applause] peace through superior firepower is a credo the american soldier lives by. give peace a chance is, well, a really crappy song by a guy who also imagined no heaven and no countries. the american soldier could never imagine live anything that world. and that's another thing about liberals, they don't even like american soldiers, they don't like who they are and where they come from. listen to the way lib calls talk about our soldiers. liberals were saying, we're for the soldier, we're just against his mission. that's like being for mcdonald's and against the beef. [laughter] that's like being for football players but against the coaches of the team, that's like being for freedom but against democracy. or being for the people who work at corporations but against corporations themselves. ooh, i forgot, that's what
liberals really think about those things too. telling a soldier you're for him but against his position, may make a liberal feel better. but liberals don't like our soldiers for other reasons. for one, a disproportionate number of our troops come from the south, they love guns and football and nascar and love their country so much that they decided to fight for her and maybe die for her. liberals see it differently. they see soldiers as being victims of economic circumstances that compel them to join, they see the military as an outpost for uneducated bumpkins and inner city kids who join the military because they have no other options. i'd love to see a liberal actually say this to a soldier's face. [laughter] don't hold your breath. they know the concerned look on their face might be wiped off with one smack. when john kerry returned from his four month summer vacation in vietnam, cameras in tow, he flew straight to washington, d.c., through the meddle --
threw the medals he didn't earn into the potomac and testified the guys he was fighting were -- with were a bunch of animals. liberals ate it all up. this ambitious yale man, kerry, was chairman of the yale political union. he was trotted before the senate foreign relations committee, a committee he would later chair, to tell his story about his service in vietnam. and, wow, what stories he told. not even his stories, but stories by a group called the winter soldiers' project. stories kerry didn't bother to fact check. why bother? the stories were largely proven to be pure fabrications, but that didn't stop john kerry or prompt even an apology. >> they told the stories of times that they had personally raped, cut off the ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown-up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed
villages in a fashion reminiscent of genghis khan. >> again division can. unbelievable. he spoke in his weird, affected masterpiece theater accent. [laughter] and, you know, when you listen to his description, sounds like an average week for saddam hussein and his sons when today ruled iraq. but kerry was describing the american soldier. he was happy to smear all g.i.s and do so with that dour, haughty pomposity we've come to know and dislike kerry for and all to advance his own standing and his own political career. here's how he described his fellow soldiers. quote: the country doesn't know it yet, but it's created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence and who were given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history, he said. now, the liberals really ate that up. and john kerry, a warrior for the liberal cause, kept on feeding them more and more.
when asked about why he thought our soldiers, the so-called monsters he described, did what they did in vietnam, john kerry went straight for the cultural jugular. >> i think, clearly, the responsibility for what has happened there lies elsewhere. i think it lies in a large part with this country which allows a young child before he reaches the age of 14 to see 12,000 violent deaths on television which glorifies the john wayne syndrome, which puts out fighting man comic books on the stands. >> john wayne syndrome? [laughter] i didn't know liking john wayne was a disease, senator blue blood. [laughter] kerry didn't blame the soldiers for being monsters, they just couldn't help themselves. it's the country they grew up in, those john wayne movies and comic books that turned those poor guys into monsters. that's what liberals really think about our soldiers and the country they serve. and there's one last reason liberals despise the military,
his name is george s. patton and all that he epitomizes. [applause] i love just running through some of his most famous quotations. it gives every liberal a migraine. [laughter] he said a good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. [laughter] liberals hate that one because they're always in search of perfection. he said if everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. [laughter] liberals hate that patton gem because they seek conformity. and then there's this patton classic, battle is the most magnificent weeing decision in which a human being can indulge. it brings out all that is best, it removes all that is base. all men are afraid in battle, he said. the coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. duty is the sense of manhood, he said. battle, competition, winners, losers, duty to country, manhood? that's why liberals hate the u.s. military, because our
soldiers believe in all of that stuff, crazy old patton believed in. and they're willing to pay the ultimate price for those beliefs. [applause] immigrants, give me your tired, poor, undocumented workers. [laughter] liberals love to say that they love immigrants, and then the minute you turn your back on them, the little rascals go about pitting legal and illegal immigrants against one another. no, it's really worse than that. they actually pretend that les not a difference between the two -- that there's not a difference between the two. have you watched a debate about illegal immigration? at some point in the conversation, whoever's arguing for open borders for illegals will suddenly stop cruising the word illegal and will just start talking about immigration as if it's all the same. during the debate it usually takes a few minutes for the person on the other side to notice that the word illegal has been dropped. it's like that old bugs bunny
cartoon where he and daffy duck are trying to convince elmer fudd it's time to hunt the other guy. it's duck season, it's rabbit season. [laughter] and bugs will throw in the quick switch, it's rabbit season, and daffy will automatically blurt out, it's duck season. bugs will smile and say, okay, it's duck season, and elmer fudd swivels his shotgun towards the hapless duck and blows his weak right off -- beak right off. they drop the illegal part from illegal immigration because they don't see a difference between the two, and they don't want us to either. to liberals, there's no difference between someone who followed the rules and someone who snuck in and who remains here in violation of our laws. and when they debate the issue, they always want to blur the distinction. i guess there's no difference between robbing a bank and using the atm either. in the both cases you're just taking money out of the bank, right? [laughter] but most americans know there's a difference, and the group who
really knows are the immigrants themselves, people from europe and india and china and all over the globe who waited in line, filled out the form, obeyed the law and are now lumped together by liberals with folks who didn't and the millions still waiting for one of those open spaces that the illegal imgrants keep taking. liberals hate immigrants almost as much as they hate rules. let's set the record straight. immigrants, legal immigrants, are america's greatest renewable resource. from the very first days of our country, people have come to our shores because they wanted freedom, opportunity. nobody took a tiny berth in steerage and crossed an ocean because the government gives you stuff or that there's a special loan program for people of a certain race or ethic background. the immigrants who came here legally and not just long ago, but recent ones too, didn't come here to change america. they love america the way it is. they came because the idea of america, a place that rewards hard work, that encourages entrepreneurs, that places family and freedom in god higher
than anything else and worth sacrificing for, that's why they come. they come to be americans and to raise american children. no one is more patriotic than an immigrant which is why the immigration process is such an important one. [applause] liberals, liberals don't see it that way, of course. liberals are always looking for the next big group of victims to help. so for them illegals are the perfect category since most illegal immigrants are from spanish-speaking country, liberals want to make spanish the semiofficial second language of america, they want government offices to offer bilingual services, offer easy citizenship. in other words, they don't want illegal immigrants to change into americans, on the contrary, liberals want to change america. they make illegal legal, and that gives liberals the votes they need to enact their dumb policies. give us your vote, and we'll change america. that's the deal for them. ask now, since there are somewhere between 10 and 15
million illegal immigrants in the united states, that represents an awful lot of votes which is why liberals will do almost anything to win them other, and that's why liberals hate legal imgrants. they also hate the legal immigration process itself. immigrants are compelled to go through a process to become americans. we make them memorize those silly little facts about american history, the ones our kids don't know. we give them a test. we make them take an oath. oh, the horror. here is that oath. i hereby declare on oath that i absolutelily and entirely renounce all awe lee jans and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty of whom or which i have heretofore been subject our citizen, that i will sport and defend the constitution and the laws of the united states of america against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that i will bear arms on behalf of the united states when required by the law, that i will perform
noncombatant services in the armed forces of the u.s. when required by law, that i will perform work when required by the law, that i take this obligation freely and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, so help me god. that's what it says. no wonder liberals hate legal immigration. every year on the day of frank capra's birth, i try and play a sound bite on my radio show from a speech he gave at the american film institute in 1982 after he received their life achievement award. now, frank capra was a first generation italian immigrant who gave us such movies as it happened one night, mr. smith goes to washington and it's a wonderful life. it's a wonderful life, indeed. in that 1982 speech, capra talked about america and the journey that brought him here. >> 79 years ago i celebrated my 6th birthday in the black, dark hole of a creeking ship crammed with wretching, praying, terrorized immigrants.
thirteen days of misery. and then the ship stopped. and my father grabbed me and carried me up the steep iron stairs to the deck, and then he shouted, chico, look at that. at first all i saw was a deck full of people on their knees crying and rejoicing. my father cried, that's the greatest light since the star of bethlehem. i looked up, and there was the statue of a great lady. taller than the church teach l, holding a lamp over the land we were about to enter. and my father said, it's the light of freedom. chico, remember that. freedom. finally, there's something i must say to some other members of my family, and i believe that
they will hear me. mama, papa, big brother ben, josephine, tony, little sister ann, remember the day we arrived at the southern pacific station here in los angeles? and papa and mama kissed the ground? look. the american film institute has given me its life achievement award. and for that, i am thanking them and all my friends who have come here. but for america, just for living here, i kiss the ground. thank you very much. [applause] ♪ [applause] >> now, let's face it, if you're
a liberal, you probably didn't get a chill like we did over frank capra's immortal words in that speech. let's face it, i don't think we're in any danger of witnessing a typical liberal offer to kiss the ground of the united states of america anytime soon. and finally, e pluribus unum, from the one many? the great seal has got everything that liberals despise right up there front and center n. the first place, you've got your eagle holding arrows. now, what good could those arrows possibly serve except for satisfying the violent blood lust that liberals see? it doesn't matter that in the eagle's right talon he's clutching the branch of peace. liberals don't think we need those sharpened arrows. liberals would prefer it if the eagle was holding olive branches in both talons.
or, better yet, maybe an olive branch in one and maybe a soft cushion in the other. [laughter] that, of course, could entice our enemies to lie down and snooze. or maybe the olive branch and a bottle of lavender massage oil. [laughter] or perhaps one of those loofah sponges they use, you know, in the spas. [laughter] actually, anything from the brookstone catalog would suit liberals just fine. the key for liberals would be to get rid of those awful arrows. we don't need a big stick, we need just a couple offer in of toys -- nerf toys and can a pleasant, hopeful expression. the eagle looks too angry, too hurtful and judgmental. liberals, given the choice, would replace that scary eagle with something more loving, more gentle, something like the tv figure barney, the purple dinosaur. [laughter] i love you, the great seal would project to all who gaze at it, a big purple dinosaur holding a juice box and a gender,
nonspecific plush toy. [laughter] but want what about the most troublesome part, what about that awful motto, e pluribus unum? latin for out of many, one. it flutters on a banner around the eagle -- excuse me, the purple dinosaur's head. it's what the founders meant that out of the great and celebrated differences between us comes one larger nation. it's perhaps the most obnoxious motto the founders could have come up with. they don't mind the e pluribus part. they love to note the things that divide and separate us. but they positively despise the unum part. the founders anticipated this when they gathered to form the nation almost three centuries ago, they were a collection of different men. the puritans from the north had complicated and not friendly relations with the quakers who in turn pretty much hated the virginia cavaliers who viewed
the georgians with contempt. they were e pluribus kinds of guys, and they knew if america was to succeed, it would have to find a way to get an unum out of all that more bus. laugh now, liberals hate this. they hate any attempt to find common ground among us americans because their political principles and agenda is all about dividing us, drawing distinctions, making lists of in groups and out groups, turning us all into victims or victimizers. in 1994 al gore gave a speech at the institute of world affairs in milwaukee about, well, you guessed it, world affairs. this was during some down time in his ruly remarkable time somewhere between the time he invented the internet and the time he discovered global warning. [laughter] the subject turned to e pluribus unum. he said, quote, we can build a collective civic space separate for all of our differences. out of one, many.
he said. that's what he said, i swear. those were his exact words. gore was quickly mocked for what many thought was a gaffe, an error. i don't think it was error, it was a freudian slip. out of one, many. now contrast his talk with a speech in 2005 from dr. larry arne, president of hillsdale college, a wonderful place where students are actually required to study the constitution. arne was discussing the ways our constitution breeds harmony. others are left free to pray or not. and with all their property intact short of slander, libel or treason, one may say what he pleases and do no harm to another. one can see how the right to property, property conceived has the same attribute. if my property is the fruit of my labor and not of yours, then we have no conflict. my having my good deprives you of having none of yours. the harmony it breeds in
society, this harmony or to use the political term, this justice is the reason why our constitution has lasted so long and our nation has prospered so well. brilliant point, doctor, liberals love to talk the harmony talk, but our founders walked the harmony walk. and we, the people, have been the beneficiaries. so let's go back to where we began, shall we? we fixed the seal, the eagle is now a purple dinosaur, the arrows are now a plush toy and a kids' drink, but the motto remains tricky. e pluribus angry? maybe e pluribus oppressed? e pluribus omnipotent? government, not god? something like that. which brings us, of course, to all 50 chapters of "50 things liberals love to hate," and it's a blast for me to read them all. it only takes about a minute. mcdonald's, flag pins, nascar, steakhouses, the pilgrims, john wayne, george bailey, walmart, football, conservative women, black republicans, christians,
the bible, the south, the west, boy scouts, girl scouts, honesty, success, the second amendment, the first amendment, pools and patios, the suburbs, freeways, baby ises, seniors taking risk, american toyotas, immigrants, workers, teachers, doctors, patients, algae, v8 engines, bright lights, the berlin wall, talk radio, american military, the founding fathers, the states, the constitution, e pluribus unum, apple pie and america. god bless america and these united states. [applause] thank you very much, everybody. i hope you get the book. thank you. [applause] >> okay. mike, mike's agreed to take a couple of questions before we get out of here, then he'll be in the front lobby. first one right here. >> i called you on the radio. we didn't bring you shoes -- >> where's chick-fil-a?
[laughter] >> we'll make good by it. >> thank you. >> but i couldn't hear your answer because there were too many priuses buzzing by -- >> clicking by, yes. >> what was your answer about why we don't have any conservative moderators on the upcoming debates against these demon -- >> well, it's a perfect metaphor for the machine we're up against. if you expect this is going to be an easy ride for governor romney, it's not. and it's unbelievable that there are just going to be liberals who are going to be moderating the debates. you know, the bar -- well, we shouldn't have. the war, though, is so much higher for governor romney than it is for president obama. it's tough, but it's true. >> next question over here. >> mike, i've got a two-part question. >> yes, sir. >> my first question is, what is this thing between you and hue wet concerning the owner, the the owner of the browns? >> well, apparently, as a huge cleveland brown fan, you're not supposed to sell art modell's
name because he moved the franchise to baltimore, so hugh takes that very personally. [laughter] but let me tell you something, hugh hewitt has been so kind and gracious, and he's a great friend of mine. 's great to promote tonight's event. he, of course, was a driving force behind the nixon library, and he's one of my best friends in the -- >> the second question is, why'd you stop at 50? [laughter] >> first edition. if this book does well, we'll do a second edition, i hope. >> next question back here. >> yes, sir. >> yeah, mike, what's the secret to winning in november? >> well, as we talked about raising the bar, you've got to vote. i can't tell you how many people i meet around the country, hard working people, dishwashers, legal immigrants who say i've never voted, but this is the year i have to vote for mitt romney. this is the year i've gotta vote. [applause] the enthusiasm is there, we just have got to translate that into actual, literal votes, and, you know, just -- and i say this all the time, it's very important to me, don't minimize or
underestimate the power of prayer. prayer works. [applause] you know, i dedicated, i dedicated "50 things liberals love to hate" to my denise, and long time listeners know i lost her a few years ago to cancer. the book is dedicated to my denise whose love and hearty laugh made the world a better place. the last year denise was sick, radio listeners were praying for her. i asked her, maybe we don't have to talk about this on the air, she said, no, go ahead. she was never in pain, she was never afraid, she was never frightened. now, she wasn't superman, and i'm certainly not -- superwoman. i will go to my grave believing she was strong because of the power of prayer, the prayer that lifted us up, lifted our four boys and lifted her through a very difficult time, and now i know that she's looking out over me and hoping the book is a
bestseller and praying and looking out and guiding me. but that prayer, take it from the me, prayer works, and that's -- we need to pray for our country and our leaders too. [applause] >> we'll do one more question, and then we'll get out of here so he can sign -- >> yeah, and we're going to sign books in front of the time magazine wall out there, right? >> each of you has one of these membership applications, if you could take a peek at it and possibly help out the foundation, it really helps us out. and if you do sign up, you can pay 50 to 5,000 -- you get a one of a kind or cap. here's our last question. >> right now we're in the mix son library. richard nix sob is probably one of the most hated people in american history if you're a liberal, but his accomplishments include, as president are almost entirely liberal. for example, he embraced the great society, he got us out of
vietnam, he made a nuclear arms agreement with the soviets and so on. and senator hugh scott, himself a liberal in 1970, said that under richard nixon the liberals got the action. now, why isn't, why doesn't richard nixon rank high in the liberal pantheon? >> listen, i will simply say this. i've been blessed and honored to tour around the country. tomorrow i'll be flying back to new york, and i'll be a guest with sean hannity wednesday night on his show to talk about the book, and i'm doing signings in long island, i was in texas and ohio, i will tell you something, this visit tonight and especially blessed by this room of wonderful patriots who came out tonight, the nixon library appearance is going to go down in 2012 as the single best appearance of my entire book tour. i'm proud to be here. very proud to be here. [applause] and real honored to be in this beautiful, beautiful place n this wonderful tribute to president nixon.
the folks on the staff has been extraordinary and hospitable, and i'm just honored to be able to spend a little bit of time talking about my book, "50 things liberals love to hate." thanks so much for coming here. i'll see you at the book signing. god bless america. >> real quick before we go, those of you that have come to our events know that it's not the authors you come for, it's these great gifts that we give them. [laughter] what would nixon do? they're available in the store, be sure to grab one. mike will be up front. >> thank you so much. [applause] outstanding. >> for more information visit the author's web site, mikeonline.com. >> coming up next, booktv presents "after words," an hourlong program where we invite guest hosts to interview authors. this week former united nations secretary general kofi annan's latest book "interventions: a life in war and peace." in it, he discusses his tenure
at the head of the international organization and the establishment of the global aids and health fund for which he and the u.n. won the nobel peace prize. he talks with the bbc's catty cay. >> kofi annan, thank you very much for joining me he on "after words." i'd like to start with your time as secretyer. iraq was a very contentious issue, you spent a lot of time writing about it in the book, and you reiterate your thought that it was not a legitimate war. you write: if 9/11 changed the world, the consequences of the iraq war were of a similarly dramatic magnitude. why do you say that? >> guest: i say that because the iraq war really led to major divisions within the international community, and i'm not just talking about the u.n.
i'm talking about its impact on communities and groups in the middle east. and beyond. and the sense that the world has been broken into groups, and some were being targeted or profiled who felt very strongly about this. and this is about a war on which the international community was divided. the council, as you know, did not approve it, and i personally believed we should have given the inspectors, the weapons inspectors more time to do their work in iraq and come back with a report to the security council. the council that had warned saddam that if you do not perform, there would be serious consequences to determine, firstly, whether he has performed, cooperated with the inspectors or not and, secondly, determine what those consequences should be. obviously, when it comes to use
of force, any country when attacked has a right to defend itself. but when it comes to broader peace and security issues, one cannot do it without the unique legitimacy of the security council. >> host: but why such a lasting legacy? because now that american troops have pulled out of iraq, isn't that a war that's done and dusted whereas, of course, the legacy of extreme islamic terrorism is with us every day? >> guest: it is with us every day because, first of all, i wouldn't say the war is dusted and done. the impact on iraq and the iraqis is rather traumatic. people are being killed in iraq every day. i was in iraq in july talking to the prime minister. we discussed syria, and he was very concerned about what could happen using their own experience and telling me that, of course, the war in iraq energized the jihadists who
rushed to iraq to fight. and i think we are likely to see the same in syria if we don't handle it properly. >> host: so there's still a global impact from iraq. >> guest: a global impact. >> host: you start the book with a very revealing story about colin powell who came to you after the invasion as it looked like americans might be about to find weapons of might destruction. mr. powell said to you with a big smile on his face, you're right, they've made an honest man of me. what did he mean? >> guest: no, i can understand that. i think that, basically, he made the case for weapons of mass destruction in iraq. and for a while we couldn't find anything. ..
>> guest: i think from what we have seen, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and i'm not sure that with or without that presentation the bush illustration would not have gone to war anyway. i think they have decided to go. >> host: you are quite pointed in your criticism of america when it comes to the work it
iraq. the perception of a global community will be that in america was enraged and vengeful >> that's correct in the sense that immediately after september 11th you will recall there was an incredible outpouring of support for the u.s. we have candlelight rallies all around the world. >> the world newspaper >> guest: i recall not long after that newsweek did a piece of a tight. why they hate us? i said, that is the wrong question. the right question would be, we have so many friends, hud will lose them. there was the fear that a greece superpower u.s. was lashing out. anyone in its way they get into
trouble. people were scared, scared of america, said it -- just sick to speak up and say what they believe it. i could see this traveling round the world talking to them which was unfortunate because the u.s. had done so much to create the u.n., so much for human rights and democracy. >> host: usually you choose that attitude to present and words to repeat. the fact that you chose to point out that criticism and used the word enraged and vengeful, is that what you felt america was acting like? >> guest: so determined to take action that i'm not sure they were ready to listen.
they were ready to listen to others and to some friends as well as some foes. when they're in that situation they do make mistakes. he to provoke others. >> host: just in the last few days are to bishop desmond tutu has called for george bush and tony blair to be made to enter to the international criminal court in the hague for lying about weapons of mass destruction. would you go as far as to support the archbishop's call? >> guest: i think men in rolls of make many decisions. they get some right in the get some wrong. some decisions are monumental. that decision was a hugely important and impact full. there for all of us.
they obviously have to live with the consequences. that history will judge them. history will judge, and that think i would want to leave it at that. they are both men who have done some very positive things in other aspects, but in my judgments that think we should leave history to judge. >> host: the case from the international criminal court. >> guest: in fact, i don't see a case, and i don't think the court itself would take any action. a wouldn't go that far. >> host: i kept thinking about the role of the secretary-general. you were particular at the time. and your position, doctor or referee in terms of americans.
>> i think it was a bit more than that. when the organization or the security council in particular its divided the secretary general becomes very tricky. the secretary-general has to keep working to bring the community together to get them to work together to find a solution. divisions, it is normal in any human endeavor to have divisions. what is important is to find the leaders to pull people together, to identify the common interest and move forward to welcome them so as secretary-general, a gauge to action by a group and you are criticizing, yes, you should speak out. you should also know you have to remain viable tech create the conciliatory role to play the
role of bringing the two sides together after the fight. >> host: very tricky. speak up, forfeiting some credit with the people who criticize. >> guest: you have to explain to them. i knew that it was going to lead to major disasters. the decision to win the war. so conscious that we will be needed. but it came to building the piece. it came to picking up the pieces after the war. and that's what happened. the organization felt they had an obligation to help the iraqi people regain their dignity. determined other future would be. so with the council gave us a mandate to help we all went in to try and see what we can do.
obviously we have some tragic consequences, losing some of our best men and women. but we had. the secretary-general in these situations is very, very tricky. but you have to navigate it. >> host: pushing for resolution. you realize that america was pushing for its war. what is going through your mind personally? how frustrating was that? >> guest: what was going to remind was that must we have this war? loss of leaders around the world . president bush and pleasure.
i was against the war with every fiber of my being and wondering how we stop this. it became obvious that it was unstoppable. i was relieved that the council did not give approval for the war. it would have been a disaster for the united nations. by no at the time americans were upset that the un and the council have not supported the war, but i think today many americans understand why. there appreciate the consulate and un took the right decision. >> host: was the total your conversation to president bush at the end? >> he was determined to act. he was determined to take action. he was determined to insure that some of the same does not give
to you and and it's a national community run around anymore. so he was absolutely determined and convinced that he was taking the right position. >> every? >> guest: he was fair. a bit of impatience, but i would not say he was a greek in the conversations with me. >> host: let's talk about peacekeeping. something you spend time on in the book. something you spend a lot of time but in your career before you were secretary general. you were head of the united nations peacekeeping operation. a review of your work by the "washington post" calling the state a steady in the failure of a noble idea. is that a fair characterization of the united nations peacekeeping operation? >> 210 different ways. some of the points you make a valid.
and, perhaps, i should at the question to when we talk of the vetted nations in this context who are we talking about? is it those who take decisions or give us a mandate, give us the resources required to carry out the mandate or sometimes not give us the resources to carry out the mandate. we are talking of the secretary and the secretary-general. your government and mine. it can be as powerful as the governments wanted to be. and sometime it we talk about the u.n. as it, they, distancing ourselves by doing that. they governments were ultimately responsible for action in some of these situations. in alibied then blaming the
secretary general. one of my publicist's used to say that we often refer to the secretary-general then as ag for short. it stands for a scapegoat. >> host: the scapegoat in chief this b-2 the scapegoat function of the un. member states and the media have to be very careful not said dump so much. useful as an alibi. we talk of the failures of somalia, rwanda, bosnia. i tried to explain in the book the difficulties we have. we have some governments that give truth. we put our differences aside.
in the investigations that i have done on rwanda and the report on bosnia and rwanda in particular, the overwhelming reason for failure was lack of will to act and change. and i think when we look at these things, we have to start to consider context. it's important. in somalia, president bush father thinking thousands of soldiers to feed hungry civilians. it was incredible initiative. it he was. they did whatever they could. of course sometimes you have food warehouses, but h