the ones who run for office because they are the ones to get the message off and to get to that can often be lawyers. sometimes doctors but people with lots of money. the proposed constitutional article here stipulated from now one there would be one congress man or woman for every 30,000 people. how many congressmen would that make more or less? one for every 30,000. add a zero. would be 10,000. how many of you think that would be on wielding? khamenei? guess what in the cradle of democracy in athens the rounded out people around 5,000 folks and brought them into the stadium to legislate just randomly. back then they had 5,000 people

in the state and now we have these means to communicate through internet and things to create all these committees and things. why is that so on wielding. instead of having one congressman and 22 staff members for a million people, they propose doing away with all the staff members. have one congressman for just 30,000, you get to know people's names, get to know their faces, their hopes and dreams and fears and aspirations but more than that it allows more people to potentially run for office because they don't need so much money to get the message out the only of to get the message ought to 30,000 people. makes it much more probable that people who are more like us to run for office and when i don't think it is unthinkable at all i think in the democracy with all the means of communication at our disposal if the greeks can do it with five or 6,000 when they didn't have any major throwing i think we have those means at our disposal now to keep it, and in addition

internet even in our vast democracy in ways that can create a more participatory democracy. jefferson as i write about in this book had his own idea of a word system where all people are involved in government all the time the. they broke down into units of hundreds where the idea was we didn't all make decisions about the same thing but we all were representatives in one area of government for everybody representing everyone else's interest rate was a brilliant scheme, and i think in the modern era there is more opportunity for bringing to the realization jefferson's system proposal and there was back then. these ideas that i write about in jefferson were even more pertinent today, and i think that they need to be considered very seriously. okay. let me just -- before we and and i thank you so much for your questions i just want to end with this but let me say one thing first. we have a web site now. it's constitutioncafe.org about

how to start and facilitate an ongoing constitutional working group. there is also information on my personal web site, come christopherphyllis.com. i invite you to go and consider the possibilities and the working group. there is any of those involved and particles. there is shrillness and taboo because you can hear each other. so you have to be listening to one another even if your passionate, especially if you're passionate. why wouldn't he be passionate? listened to one another open it up for others to consider. here's what jefferson exhorted. let us on bail ourselves of our reason to correct the crude essays of the first and the unexperienced although why is a virtuous and well-meaning council. if you deconstruct this it was quite a backhanded compliment. on the one hand jefferson characterized the framers efforts to create the constitution as wise, virtuous and well meaning each. however it was more than a crude

and experienced first attempt. that should be revisited and remedied. as jefferson wrote are certainly am not an advocate for frequent and untried changes and laws in the constitution. but i also know that the lobbies and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. and as that becomes more developed, more enlightened as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed and opinions changed with the changed circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace. so my call and his call for the constitutional convention might seem an unlikely prospect. but a critical mass of people is rales and inspired they might come to the conclusion that of

our government is failing to achieve the goal for which it was designed. and so high and might be right at last to consider jefferson's proposal to rewrite the constitution. the declaration of independence jefferson was charged to write was the work of a flawed man who in his words and in his time and deeds revealed an extraordinary empathy for people whose aspirations and hopes were unlike and. jefferson's proposal to revise periodically the constitutions also a declaration of independence of sorts. he believed we did the founder is a disservice if we looked at their work as a contact joyce apple the jefferson scholar put it the true jeffersonian legacy is to be hostile to legacies. jefferson had no doubt coming generations could improve on their accomplishments in ways the would better enable all americans to realize their hopes for self-government. and in the last -- in a letter he wrote to john adams, jefferson compost these rousing

words. a first attempt to recover the right of self-government may fail. so second come third, etc.. but as a younger and more instructed race comes along, the sentiment becomes more and more intuitive and a subsequent one of the a renewed attempt will ultimately succeed for what is so valuable can the man leave to prosperity. thank you very much. [applause] >> i would like to do this preservation to my father, alexander phillips the past we last saturday my father when i told him about this idea his eyes lit up and he said this is really interesting. i know he would love to be here but thank you so much. [applause]

>> for more information visit the author web site, christopher phillips.com. we would like to hear from you. next, political commentator david horowitz reflects on several moments in his life and presents his philosophical thinking on life and mortality. it's a little over an hour. >> on behalf of the philadelphia freedom center it is my pleasure to welcome you to the union league club of philadelphia and to introduce david horowitz. i would like to thank - a seat for attending today's event. [applause] and i'd like to also offer my sphinx to c-span for being here today to cover this event for its national audience.

[applause] i would remind you that immediately following today's program david will be available to sign new copies of the book a point in time as the signing table in the room. my name is craig snyder, i am the executive director of the philadelphia freedom center. it's a non-profit organization committed to the ideals of individual and economic liberty and limited government and defense of the free society which are currently under attack by enemies both religious and secular at home and abroad. david horowitz was born into a family of dedicated communists whose members of the communist party. as a rigid labor baby growing up in new york, david was in dhaka made it into the intellectual world of collectivism and as a young man he became intoxicated with the hopeful idea that all of humanity can be saved from its historical misfortune's if

they were only to abandon the old world institutions and to adopt the marxist ideals of the social salvation. marxist credit for me to his ability each to his own hamid begin the mantra of a generation of ultra bolshevik bolsheviks committed to the salvation of humanity david was a foot soldier in the war of ids and as his best-selling novels radicals ideals unexplained wasn't until the early 50's when the truth of stalin's genocidal atrocities were confirmed that david broke ranks with the communism of his parents and became a founding member of the new left, a kinder and gentler form of the social progress of the sum that was the idea of it any way. david along with his writing and business partner peter collier published reports, the secretive the new left and he became a prominent leader of the entire war anti-establishment left.

as the radicals on his autobiography details the series of events culminating in a murder of his friend betty van patter by the black panthers. this was a seminal moment that led to david's in the middle of the left and the embrace of conservatism for which she earned the everlasting enmity of his former comrades in arms. david is a writer, a prolific writer, and he is a thinker, deep thinker. david tells the truth, the whole truth coming and he is honest, brutally honest. a good writer, and david is a good writer, writes the truth, not little truths, but big truth. with a capital to write the truth one has to dig deep into his or her personal experience. that is not easy to read david has made life changing reversals. his only loyalty to find and speak the truth, truth with a

capital t. in his new book a point in time, david shares his insight into man, god in a way that only he can. it is an honor and privilege to present you a man of high moral clarity, deep in sight and a clear voice and a world threatened by political correctness and cultural relativism. the world needs more men like david horowitz. i respect him, admired him, and i am proud to be his friend. ladies and gentlemen, david horowitz. [applause] >> thank you branigin brahimi for putting together this event and the freedom center in philadelphia, my home away from home. karl marx wrote in four volumes

which he never finished and was virtually unreadable. when he was asked why he wrote such a long book she said because i didn't have time to write a short one. this book i have written is quite short but it took me three years to write and a lifetime to gain the understanding that i tried to communicate in these pages. the book itself began when i picked up a copy of the meditation of marcus which is a book i remembered from my father's bookshelf, which he had just kept from college was not a book as i will explain shortly but he would have wanted to read as an adult or would have liked or learned from. he was the 19th emperor of rome.

he was the emperor in the film gladiator, and he was by all accounts a good man and was also a philosopher, not a formal one. he took notes to himself and his notes were found in the middle ages by monks who saw in many prefiguring of their own faith and gave the title that we know them by the meditations of marcus he was a stoic and i'm hyper realistic view of life and therefore somewhat grim depended on the perspective. his philosophy could be summed up in these words of his be not trouble for all things are according to nature and soon you will be no one and know where. so this was a view of life

unredeemed by either a romantic vision or religious want. my father was a progressive communist, but all progressives share this vision. he would not -- he thought he could change the world or he was participating in a movement to change the world whereas marcus did not believe in progress or history for that matter. he said those who have seen present things have seen all. both everything from all eternity to everything that will be to the end of time. that is things don't change because we are basically creatures just like we are

animals and our unhappiness is caused by our consciousness of the fact that one day we will be no one and nowhere. animals just live in the present, but if you think about the future and think about the past, it can cause you a lot of problems. progressives are motivated by the designer to escape this world. the world when they look at the world its too and just to use their phrase, and of course it is. i mean, bad people or reworded, good people by young, innocent people are tormented and suffered. so people like my father escape instead of trying to deal with this reality for one reason or another they are unable to.

they want to skate by creating a new world. that's what progressivism is about. as i was brought up in this tradition and of course you never lose the memory of the way the use of things when you were younger. there was a passage that just brought me up and it's part of his advice about a deal stoicism is basically don't sweat the small stuff but don't sweat the big stuff either. so, in this passage he says when you rise in the morning to say to yourself i shall meet today intrusive, ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, in the sand and charitable. but don't bother yourself about it. this is the advice. is it possible that they were

not being shameless people in the world? it's not possible. therefore, do not require what is impossible. that's the story to view and that's the complete antithesis of everything that i was brought along but i was brought up if you meet untenable and grateful envious people change them. i was always proselytizing when i was young. you have an encampment in your cities as they have and will st. down with of agreed. anybody with a view of the world would say let's see, greed, it's been part of human nature for five, 10,000 years as well as their of the human beings. good luck to you. los dewitt view has a problem with it, and in the meditations

because you have to ask yourself well, if we are soon going to be no one and know where and everything that we do is the race and therefore nothing has any meaning of and what is the point? the only real decision you have is how to get out of this world as quickly as possible. looking at himself we felt he was a coward so again and again to answer the question comes up with to my mind is a jury on satisfying answer he just changes the question and says if i look at the world it's beautiful. there must be a designer. therefore there are some dogs who take care of us. there are no gods and we're

living in meaningless existence. i am an agnostic which means i just don't know but i can live with that uncertainty. not everybody -- i mean, it is just my state of being. but people -- with this teaches us is even if marcus had to have a faith people needed faced most people cannot live with the idea that life is meaningless, that everything that we do ads of to nothing. and that brings me to the second author which i looked at in this book which is an author who would not appear on my father's shelf which is the great russian novelist and my father's eyes

and the office of progressives who was a the altar of reactionary stood in the way of this beautiful future that they thought of themselves as creating and that is when i was when i left this faith because he began as a radical and in fact was joined a group of who reticles in st. petersburg and they were arrested for plotting to kill whether they actually were or not we don't know, and they were convicted and then they were kept in a jail for four months and they were marched out in the early morning to a parade ground where there were three execution stakes and they were red their sentence which was deaf and started to put the blindfolds on and they were going to be executed in groups of three which is why

they were on the cover of my but there were three execution states, and just before the ordered the fire began somebody rode up and gave them a reprieve and it had been a plan of them to punish, as you know he was elected and whether this trigger his epilepsy we don't know. it wasn't a happy experience. he was sent to siberia and there he had a change of heart and mind, and i don't think anybody has written as eloquently as he has on the budget proletarianism , and what it means on revolution and what it means. he believed that human beings cannot live without a higher idea. and he believed that that idea

was mortality. but his main perception is because people do not believe in god does not believe they do not believe in nothing. and in fact, his perception was that if they did not believe in god they will believe in themselves as god and this is what your body out there on the occupied demonstrations of course they are very young so you've got to forgive certain stability of young people or illusion and arrogance. when i was young i was stupid and arrogant and was always preaching the way they are in everybody's face. but if you think of with the radical mission is what is it? it is to change the world, create a new world. that's what got does.

human beings -- a lot of my book is about this, can't create the new world because we are the cause of the problem. that is a simple idea. in proceeding radicals, progressives as people trying to create a new religion, a new face this is not an original idea because that is the way the radicals like marks salles themselves, in fact the account who was the father of the french socialism actually said that socialism is a religion, the religion of humanity and the hero is prometheus who stole fire from the gods so they saw themselves as acting as dogs and in fact marxist's whole critique of religion is to project on to

god their own power, and therefore they alienate their power, they distance themselves for their own power, so by rejecting god they take their power and then they can act like god. that is basically the marxists idea. of course human beings don't project on to god their powers. the ones that they don't have. he had this perception that it was not just atheistic radicals. it's not an accident that the modern radical movements all grew up around the time of darwin, and just before darwin that is when will they were saying religion is challenged, religious beliefs were challenged. it is a secular religion.

people suffer and we are going to redeem them and it's not like we're going to redeem suffering of individual, we are going to redeem the whole world. he saw this actually had already developed in his view in the roman catholicism. why is that? because the fall was as some had made the attack with the roman empire. they created a paramount is very famous pebble called the grand inquisitor, just in pages and the great novel of the brothers, and in this terrible, christ has been of course it takes place in the 16th centuries of christ has been absent for 1500 years or so to read the second coming.

he hasn't come and he has left people in the uncertainty. and this is the great source of human suffering that we don't really know, we don't know who we are or why we are here, we don't know where we are going to lead and it is an intolerable state for people. and the grand inquisitor, christ comes back to earth. he never says anything in the parable, but of the inquisition of arrests and immediately and the grand inquisitor, this chapter is his indictment of got from the time of creation and the indictment is that your absent. you have less people with a decision as to whether to be the four not to believe, and that is intolerable to them. they can't handle it, so you are the cause of human suffering. and so, we have stepped in as the church, and this is -- he

projected into this not only the roman catholicism but socialism on to itself. we are going to take care of you. we will bring people happiness by giving them who led a band of 40. we will tell you what to believe, and if you submit to us, you will be happy. that is the source of human happiness. and of course christ was tempted by in the gospel he was tempted by satan who told them to for those of down off a cliff cast himself off a cliff and the rescue himself because he's god and that would make people believe. it's a reason of the cross, god could manifest itself it has been hidden from human beings. i will come to the reason why in the second, but christ didn't do

this and therefore he condemned and jews could ask the same question we are the chosen people. why the holocaust and the target of the second half because of the world. we don't have an answer and got the -- and god doesn't give us an answer. this is the interesting perception. that is what makes us human? what makes us human is the ability to choose freedom to make a choice of whether to believe in god or not or whether

to do good or whether they do the right thing. insofar as we are human, we have to have this freedom otherwise what would they become is the metaphor as an ant hill everybody does the queen dance whether it is the chief for the rabbi or whatever we will submit and we will be happy because people will tell us what to do. so it is freedom that makes us human but it is also our freedom that makes the world out there, society, such a bad place. if people didn't have a choice and they had to be good because god was telling you to be good

you didn't have any question as to what the right path was we wouldn't have the war we wouldn't that the left progressives complain about, the radical missionaries complained about to read this all comes from choice. the subtitle of my book is redemption in this life or the next. redemption in the next life is something that nobody can know that there is. if you are religious and believe in the vicinity, you probably also will have the faith that it will all be sorted out. it will be made clear to us why innocent suffer. he has this amazing chapter about the children suffering. why do children suffer.

how can they just and compassionate god sanction the suffering of little children? and it's horrible. we have the same stories in the world today. people who think that mankind is morally improving just have to look at the abuse of children which is global billions of children in slavery as we speak there is a carpet obama put in the white house and on the carpet is inscribed the words the moral arc of the universe is bent towards justice. does anybody think that there is a century with more in a sense

murdered and tortured them of the 20th century? who can think that the morrill art of the universe is bent towards justice? what progressives, revolutionaries, radicals come all of these visions, socialists, communists, social justice, crusaders believe is that the problem is society. society and divides people, society elevates summit keeps others down. society persuades us tobacco into the unnecessary war. society is the problem. a society makes criminals. but society doesn't do this,

there is no society. society is us. society is a reflection of who we are. everybody has the capacity for selfishness, aggression, doing things that are on just we think moral choices of the time and sometimes we make choices that are immoral. the better among fewer of those traces, and what we consider probably misdemeanors. maybe there are things that work among us but they are certainly rare. so you're the problem. but if we are the problem, then we can't fix the problem, can we? putting people in power does what? it takes the same type of person that is causing the problem and gives them a lot of power of the

rest of us. and that's why all, you know, you'd think by the way that some of these young people will come after they anointed the messiah, obama put them in the white house and things turn out badly that we understand these are not fixable in the way that they think that they are. if you believe the problem lies outside of us, then you can believe that we can solve the problem and that is what i mean by redemption in this life. you create a meaning as the new world how meaningful is that that is a meeting for a life. which you can do that if you see the problem is outside of you and not implicated in the problem of the corruption is in

our problem and the impossibility of redemption is true divinity and in the next life. you have to see the corruption as being in the us then you have a religious view, and i think that this is a view that has relatively benign because it doesn't empower people to think that they are brought. however, seeing that corruption has within us is we are right back to the idea what makes us human is our freedom to do wrong as well as light and of course it is right in the chapters of genesis, the opening of genesis. adam and eve it was better than socialism. if you didn't buy, you didn't have to work, there was no pain.

i mean, come on. this is it, everybody. but no. nay one thing that our parents should not do which is to each of the tree, the knowledge of good and evil, and of course to no evil you have to participate in it. and it's there to freedom god gave in genesis, god gave adam and eve the freedom to choose right and wrong and they chose wrong, and so they were expelled from paradise. this is to be the most insightful parable of where we are in the experiences that we have all have for our lifetimes. that is human beings are not fit to live in a paradise because they want the choice of us make that choice is, some bigger, some less.

so we were all implicated and of course dhaka puts an angel in the flaming sword at the gates of even to keep us from returning to get it could only return by the devine agency would progressives want to do, with socialists want to do and what communists want to do and actually just to amplify this in one way with the islamists, the islamic muslim jihads although they believe in a given the they think they can make this will wholley while the infidels and by instituting got's wall because they believe that they've got in the seventh century is gods law and so they're just as dangerous as radicals and of course the radicals are now in a pass of alliance with the islamic

jihadists running interference with their doing with the communists when the communist empire was going strong and that is of course because they see us and the state of israel has agreed and of little state and preventing their paradise from being achieved and what struck me in the lifetime of unfortunately paying attention to the politics. if i had to choose a life i think that if i -- if we don't choose our parents, we don't choose our lives it's been an interesting life, but i can see a lot of other things i would rather have been doing them to engage in politics. it's funny because i once interviewed a journalistic work

i interviewed a prosecutor who started out as a defense attorney i said why did you switch from being a defense attorney? because i didn't want to hang out with criminals. but who the thing that i've learned from the one thing that i've learned is how we don't learn from our experience collectively. individuals learned, some individuals. they pay attention. but mankind doesn't learn. the collective doesn't learn. and this was brought home to me because i had to leave -- read. he had in a magazine called a diary of a writer, and in the

magazine, he had articles which were autobiographical. he covered a lot of court cases and if you read them you will be impressed with how similar they are to the same kind of discussions going on today. that is the jury's finding all kind of excuses for criminals, bad parenting for them or that circumstances but would justify the worst crimes to the table but it buys these things. but anyway, here's a passage that struck me. he had been discovered by a holder a critic when he was a young man. he was a radical who brought him into this radical circle. do we know he screeched on evening sometimes he was very excited he would screech as he turned to me do you know that

minn's sings cannot be counted against him? when society has hated if is set up in such a mean fashion economic factors alone lead him to do wrong and it is an absurd and cruel to demand from a man something in the very laws of nature make it impossible for causes people. he says do you know that centuries will pass and mankind will proclaim the mouth but only hungry men. feed them first then ask virtue of them. that is what they will write on the banner babies against you and your temple will be

destroyed. view them first and then comes the virtue. if you've ever seen the mother courage we are told it is a wretched individual, but as an individual, but from a communist he wrote in mother courage first comes feeding then comes morality. so people are not responsible for what they do. a society becomes responsible. and if that is the case, then society will make people good and that's that utilitarian, the totalitarian fantasy. what he also said is because of the choice makes us suffered,

uncertainty makes us suffer the first thing people will do when they're given freedom is seek an object to worship. seeking cause to worship, seek a leader to worship which is the first thing you want to know when you look at the world today. stalin, i shouldn't say all progressives, 90% of the progressives supported the soviet union even those who became a little after stalin died understand that he committed crimes, became anticommunist which is a way of supporting the enterprises that produce stalin. stalin killed virtually a member of every single family in the soviet union. that's how many people he killed.

but when he died, millions of people flocked to his funeral procession. so many people that if thousands of people were trampled to death by them worshiping stalin, and of course they create a mausoleum where people would line up for ten hours just to view his corpse. then they took a poll in the late 50's, stalin died in 53. in the poll of three greatest russians voted by the russian people who have lived through this work item, peter the great and joseph stalin, and this shows the persistence of this and the demonstrators out

they're going for the katulis on without the foggiest idea what they're going to replace it with having thought through the problem how do you get people to work, how do you give them incentives, never having given a second thought to that. .. no conflict basically. if you think you can create no poverty, it if you think no war,

if you can create such a world what crime will you not commit to achieve it? what lie would you not tell or if you don't have the stomach for committing the crime, what crime would you not support? the american left, in its majority, is supporting one way or another hamas, which is an organization which is dedicated to killing the jewish. it says so in its own charter. how can progressive people, people who say they are for social justice, be supporters of hamas? they can because they have this vision of a redeemed future and who is standing in the way of it? it is america and the jewish. and how reminiscent is that of say the 1930s? so, mark is a really is was

right about the illusion of progress and of course it was a various -- very classical view. when the roman general concord kosygin set fire to the great city of carr said, he wept because he saw the future of rome. anyway, in this book, a lot of this book is about my animals because i think you can learn from your animals what life is about. atheism is a form of faith. i think it is a very destructive faith in the hands of radical as. there is only faith. there is faith or just in awe at the mystery of it. i just read a book by frances

collins called the language of god. he is the head of the genome project and the scientist that started as an atheist and now he is a person of faith. but in summarizing our scientific knowledge today, the fact is that scientists know that the universe began with a big bang, but what set off the bang? they don't know. they haven't got the foggiest idea as to how the universe was created. when you come to the next great question, okay there was a big bang and there's all this matter or whatever it is out there. how do you create life out of that? they haven't the foggiest idea. we see through a glass -- as the gospel says. maybe we will see him face-to-face, but we don't know.

if you accept that, you will get a kind of stoic view of the world. and you certainly understand that it is very difficult to make things better than they are across the board. it is not so difficult to make things worse, which we see repeated over and over again. if there is a redemption that we can accomplish, it is like one person at a time. and in order to help another person or heal another person, you have to have that person's willing cooperation. human beings cannot be manipulated like an and the vision of socialism, the vision of an earthly revolution is a

vision of contempt for human beings and their ability and their desire to make choices. so when the socialists come to power, they faced people probably like certainly the people in this room who will resist them and they need -- we need to force them to be good or just or socialist. that is the danger that we face in the face of from islam. we face it from the left. we face it from people who are called liberals in this country, who want to make us good and are continually passing laws to do so. anyway, that is what my little book is about. thank you for listening. [applause] >> we are going to pass the mic around for those of you that would like to have any questions

answered. for anyone that needs to leave early, it's about 1:20 almost now but there will be a book signing immediately following this short question and answer period. >> hello david. crist at all. your kind enough to be on the show this morning. >> please plug your show. >> i appreciated. >> you were good enough to join me this morning i will start by asking what i asked you on the show. i am fascinated with extreme environmentalism that seems to be certainly a very close cousin to some of the things you are talking about, anarchists, socialists and things of that nature. can you talk about that? >> sure. i actually once wrote an article for the "national review" called red to green.

it is a radical environmentalism is a radicals will wet dream. one of the problems that the socialists had was how are we going to get a revolution and the answer was the working-class, and of course by the 60s, i mean the hard hats, the construction workers were beating up leftist demonstrators but all over the world the working-class and never acted the way marks said they would as a revolutionary agent. and having conservative workers, they were called reagan democrats, just blows apart the whole vision. how wonderful to have people at that you are defending not be workers but trees.

[laughter] they can't say hey wait a minute i don't need this kind of help. the other aspect of environmentalism that is so attractive to radicals is that it is apocalyptic. radicalism is always about an apocalyptic -- of public vision. you are either saved or you are. and i use this in my political speeches but but liberals are like hellfire preachers when you think of it. i mean, if you don't agree with them, then you are a racist or a sexist or a. conservatives reply to that by calling them liberals. [laughter] so the apocalypse, rosa luxemburg famously said the choice is socialism or barbarism.

the third is communism or fascism. it is always this apocalypse because if you are facing and apocalypse, you give people a lot of power, so there is no and. you want the government to do this to save the planet. how can you say noted that? you know, so it is just the perfect cause and a lot of the communist radicals went into the environment. which doesn't mean that every environmental issue is a revolutionary issue. i mean there are plenty of ways to regard the environment to treated better than we have. we have got cleaner air now and that is good. short of just surrendering all of our freedom to these plans. i mean the cap-and-trade bill, they are going to regulate your

energy use in your house. the government is going to tell you how many times you can flip on the lights are not. you just get an hour space of choice. >> david i will never forget that back and forth you had with that jewish hater islamist at the university and my kids are way about college. i feel that is something i personally want to do to help better jewish perception on campus. is there anything you can recommend to me that i can do with my time and effort? >> well, for those of you who aren't familiar with this, there is a youtube video of a talk i gave at the university of california san diego, and when i finished a young woman wearing a headscarf who identified herself later as a member of the muslim students association, which is an arm of the muslim

brotherhood, although that perception is still, hasn't reached enough people, but it is an arm of the muslim brotherhood. it is the sponsor of jewish hating events on college campuses with the collusion of campus left and the administration. and i asked her, forget that exact question she asked that i asked her if she would condemn hamas as a terrorist organization and she said, do you want to crucify me, which took me about. although i have been through this kind of encounter many times. i said, what you mean by that? she said well if i don't condemn hamas then i would be arrested by homeland security so in other words in her mind we live in a fascist state and the people who support, supporters of hamas instead of being invited to the white house as they often are,

will be put in jail. so i said okay, well i will put it to you this way. i am jewish and the head of hezbollah has said that he wants us all together in israel so he doesn't have to hunt this down. she leaned into the microphone and said -- that should be a revelation to people. while i was here in philadelphia i met with some jewish students at u. penn who do not begin to understand this about the muslim students association or about the threat that the jewish face. there was no more embattled group on college campuses than the jewish students who are harassed, particularly if they are israelis. there are organizations that stand with us that could put out a positive image.

israel is the only tolerant, decent society in the middle east. there's no question about it, and of course you never get to that question because they throw this huge lie in your face that israel stole the land from the arabs. anybody who doesn't know this, the land on which israel was created the longest to the turks for 400 years. before israel was created. also, 80% of the so-called palestine mandate, ella stein was never a nationality, never a country. does a geographical region. it's like new england. that is what palestine means. it's a roman name that the romans gave to this area. anyway, this is the lie.israel

stole the land. there is no land that israel stole. oh, what i was going to say is that the indians claim to america is stronger than the arabs are palestinian claim to israel. so be mindful of that, americans. because the left never stops unless it runs into a stonewall. that is the reality of the left. >> dan with us is such an organization. our center, the freedom center, is carrying on an education campaign on college campuses to educate the facts about the middle east. we have a one-party press on our universities. you cannot believe the censorship of editors on simple statements of fact. you cannot associate a negative fact with an air of or a palestinian, or at least i can't,