and the politicians who push it or so affect it in their propaganda and the phony intellectuals who push are so effective in the arguments they make good where does this come from? kind of when did it start? and i thought that had to be addressed if we are really going to in my view save the country. the other point is, where did all of these come from? we talk about property rights in these other things. where did they come from? the founders didn't wake up and think about the three branches of government. what does this stuff come from? so it comes from a lot of places, but i decided to focus on a few of those places as well. and so, i have concluded that the problem we have is this utopian state is them. you can hear it today, were politicians get up and create a program. i'm going to fix the mortgage

situation. i'm going to create a program and incomes will be equalized. no, they're not going to be equalized. i'm going to create a program into something else. and now you have to do is surrender more and more of your litany and assets and more and more of who you are as somehow they will continue and fix the situation. where does this come from, this ideology? why i wrote

this book. [applause] >> you had mentioned the word stateism and if there's a word out of liberty and tyranny that you have successfully i think brought back to the learn lexi con is the word stateism. now define ameritopia for me. >> well, i got to thinking after i go through a lot of the philosophers -- this is a book basically on political philosophy. and then at the end it all comes together. i tie it all together. and the bottom line was, i got to thinking -- and i ended liberty and tyranny this way, we're not really a federal pub anymore because the states that gave the central government its birth now live at its behest. we're not really a constitutional republic in many respects because so much of our

government is now rote. that is we've got this massive bureaucracy. doesn't matter who's elected. it just keeps operating and consuming and regulating no matter who you vote for. and it's not really a representative republic anymore in that respect either. so i thought, what is it? well, it's not the america that the founders founded. it's something else. and i think -- i came up with the name ameritopia. and i don't know where we're going with this. i don't think anybody knows where we're going with it. but there are aspects of tyranny that a lot of people don't feel but a lot of people do feel. for instance, if you're a farmer today, you're being put upon like never before by the american airlines protection agency and if you're a rancher you're being put upon by the interior. we have people under attack all over this country. we've got businesses, small businesses, too, under attack in every direction.

and it's getting much and much, much worse and then we hear these politicians talk about you got to have skin in the game and i think to myself, skin in the game. is that what we were founded for? to have skin in the game? no, we were founded to make sure that our liberty is protected, not for us, to give skin in the game for the bureaucrats and the politicians. so basically the title in one word -- i said i got to figure out one word that kind of explains it and then explains it more in the book. and that's ameritopia, a mix between america and this utopianism. [applause] >> now, let me say this. you don't have to clap every time i give an answer. [laughter] >> i mean, you can give a standing ovation if you want, but it's not necessary. [laughter] >> but whatever you want. >> yeah.

[laughter] >> you know, i have to quest first half of the book -- i'm reading through it and i'm like, my gosh, it felt like a professor was taking me through a course on political philosophy. the sections you wrote where it was -- let me define for you the very origins of utaupism and the class of ideas like that and you took a scholarly question and my question is why did you feel for like your average reader it was so necessary to get that deep and to really go to the roots of the various philosophies? >> because i think my audience is smart phone than most audiences. that's number 1. [laughter] [applause] >> and number 2, if we're going to understand what what's happening then we really need to understand what's happening to us. if i just say this guy is a liberal, look what he's got to do, great. if you saw my dining room table, my dining room table is stacked with books on philosophy from

100 different philosophers and in the end i got down on the floor and plato and the republic and thomas moore and utopia and thomas hobbs and levison and the manifesto some of these books are fairly complicated particularly in their translations. if you notice in my book, not one of them is more than 20, 25. i get right down to the nub of it but i also let them speak for themselves also. the bottom line is, plato's republic -- the ayatollah khomeini references it as one of the things that drove him toward the type of society that he created, which is, of course, a genocidal theocracy in iran. and what plato does in the republic, he has the defenders, people say you're not reading it right, you don't understand. that's fine. but in the republic, one of the

things they do is they want to control health care. and they want to control health care because they want to control the population. and the oldest of the old and the frailest of the frail and the most ill among them are supposed to accept the fact that death is an honorable thing under certain circumstances, so society can flourish and so forth. and also the whole notion of philosopher kings is in -- is in the republic and much, much more and then when you look at thomas moore in utopia, thomas moore's utopia many people argue was a fiction and that's the problem. communism in many respects is based on this utopian notion of radical egalitarianism. and so there we have pretty much equal -- the attempted equal incomes, the attempt at phony

representative government. and isolationism, you know, it's a pencil and they turn it into an island. people who have been in the urban areas. after a while they're pushed out forcibly if necessary into the farming areas and, you know, you think about mao and you think about these other folks who were doing this sort of thing. i'm just giving you a thumbnail. then you move into thomas hobbs levison the social compact case but i believe it's a monthsus centralized sovereign that treats the publics like subjects citizens. and they enter into this and they can't get out, this arrangement. and he thought that people on their own are nasty, brutish and quote of his need to be controlled by a benevolent mastermind and finally, of course, the manifesto which is really trash but -- [laughter]

these two classes, landowners and the laborers never shall the two meet. laborers need to landowners, destroy religion, destroy any remnants of what's what's in existence and once they do that, eventually, the state withers away i guess san francisco 1960. i don't know. [laughter] >> an awful lot of people have been brutalized and yet this whole notion of soft tyranny and centralized come out of this sort of thinking, this utopian type thinking and you can hear it in our politicians today. every week they have a new program a mule program that cost as fortune and where the gets bigger and more

powerful and issues regulations biggest problem here is utopianism and constitutionalism can't work together. of its limits. the book requires some explanation. the founding fathers fully understood the notion of utopianism. they were familiar with plato's they were familiar with hobbs and moore and not the manifesto. but they were familiar with these -- what i call these attempts at creating these perfect societies, these and they completely rejected them because they understood that human beings are imperfect. so that doesn't make a handful perfect. it makes very imperfect too. that's why they develop the constitution the way that they do. >> let's spin the clock forward from plato to, you know,

relatively modern america and you have a chapter in your book and you go into some length about roosevelt in the '30s and the '40s and the new deal. and the more i read it, the more i got -- i got concerned 'cause it felt to me like maybe this last three years has been an attempt at a new new deal. is there any truth to that, you think? >> well, let me move back just a little bit. if you look at our constitution, everybody knows it's broken into three branches. when you look at the debates, at the constitutional convention, the -- what we call the antifederalist and when you look at the ratification debates afterwards, the antifederalists -- they were not happy with this three division. and even though each division, the legislature, the judicial were not given plenary power you can't just letting about

anything. you have to legislate about these things. you can't be the executive and have all the executive you want. you have executive to fix things. the judiciary is barely even defined. so our founding fathers or framers in particularly were very concerned of the notion of a centralized government with consolidated power. they were familiar with these works that i was familiar with and more and they just fought a revolution. and during the ratification debates in the states, the constitution almost didn't make it. they had problems including massachusetts, john adams was twisting arms to get it passed. the south, virginia started to rise up, pennsylvania was a big problem. so they had to agree to these amendments. if the constitution is ratified by the states, three-quarters of the states then -- or in this case almost three-quarters of the constitution would put out

these 12 amendments, send it out to the states and the states would either ratify or not. and two of the most important amendments were the 11th and 12th amendment. which became the 9th and 10th amendments in the bill of rights. the 9th amendment talking about individual authority, sovereignty and the 10th amendment talking about state sovereignty. the constitution would never have been ratified without those promises of those amendments and those amendments were really taken from james -- george mason in the virginia declaration of rights and those were taken from john locke earlier on which we can talk about earlier if anybody cares. but anyway, so the bottom line was this. it was crucial to the federalists and the antifederalists that the central government be very limited and these are the things it can do. it was crucial that the states retain the rest of their

sovereignty. and it was crucial that the interpretation of the constitution be viewed through the ninth amendment and that is holding up the individual as something that has value and worth and is to be protected. so you have to attack the constitution. you have to dismantle it in order to push for a centralized government with this concentrated power, this utopian stateism i call it. and among the first, although not the first, but among the most prominent advocates of this was woodrow wilson. and woodrow wilson -- and i went back and looked at his writings before he became president, when he was at princeton, and woodrow wilson makes it very clear. he dismisses the unalien i can't believe rights line and concept in the declaration of independence which is the essence of our founding. he says the constitution cannot possibly be divided this way with one, in essence, body part

organ fighting with another body part organ so he basically said that the federal government and the different branches have to do whatever they have to do to bring authority within the federal government. fdr agreed with that. and fdr relied on a number of phony experts including a columbia professor who said that you must attack individualism. you must attack american individualism or otherwise this whole notion of community and the consolidation could never occur. this is a long way of answering your question. the new deal was clearly an attack on our constitutional system. if these programs are so wonderful, and if the people want them so overwhelmingly, and we're under the process of adopting it. it's the amendment process of the constitution. but the way it works now is the government -- the different branches -- it's like an ongoing constitutional convention with -- oh, you got obamacare,

what's the authority for that? well, who cares. pass the law. cap-and-trade, same thing. so what's going on today comes down to two words and they're not my two words, fundamental transformation. [laughter] >> those are obama's words. and i asked a couple of questions. but look at the constitution and the power of the president, does the president have the powerful to fundamentally transform america? of course not. >> no. >> why would you want to fundamentally transform america? that means you don't like america very much, do you? that means you don't like capitalism, private property rights very much. that means you don't like our constitutional system very much. when you keep hearing this fundamental transformation, change is hard, we need more time for change, you need to understand this is a direct attack on our constitutional system. that's what he's talking about. that's what he means. did i answer your question? >> yep.

>> i don't even remember what it was. mra[applause] >> okay. >> you know i'm a radio host, right? [laughter] >> go! what is the -- so what would you say -- if i said you have to name the number 1 thing that you think in the last several years has robbed us more of our liberty and drives this country more towards ameritopia than anything else? what would it be? >> there's no question what it is. it's obamacare. and the reason is -- the reason is -- [applause] >> obamacare is about health insurance but it's about more than that. it's about the final nail in the coffin of the constitutional system. you look at obamacare. obamacare is an attack on the commerce clause. the purpose of the commerce clause was to promote commerce between the states. not to kill commerce. not to kill competition.

it would be called the anticommerce laws. but that's the commerce clause it would be to protect private property rights, trade because new jersey and pennsylvania were fighting with each other. they were all blocking each other on the rivers and so forth and say we got to fix this. so the commerce clause was portrayed, procommerce, the commerce clause. the notion that the commerce clause could be used by commerce to compel individuals to do something against their will or their best interest. in particular, to force a person to enter into a private contract with a private company. the private company is forced to offer a policy that it doesn't want to offer. and the individual is forced to pay for it and the company is forced to provide it, that is so absurd. that's so antithetical to our founding and, of course, as all of you here know, that will be the end. because then the government can force us to do all kinds of things that we don't want to do and that will be the precedent

for it. but obamacare does more than that. you saw the recent attack on the catholic church and other people of faith and so forth. why do we have to in this country compel every single insurance provider to provide free contraception. the status quo today is that they don't and yet is it really that hard to get a condom? i'm just saying? [laughter] >> it's really not that hard to get a condom. i mean, most public schools are handing them out like lollipops or something so it's not that big -- [laughter] >> and isn't it interesting that that's what -- not cancer treatment, not diabetes treatment, not heart disease but that. but that aside, that attacks the whole notion of the free exercise of religion and more than that it attacks private property rights because maybe the company -- and even more than that, it attacks individual liberty because maybe i don't want to subsidize something for free for somebody else, let them

pay for it themselves and the government doesn't have the power to tell me that i must. [applause] >> there is one thing i want to mention on this. and this is this notion of tyranny. you know, de tocqueville talked about this and he's not the only one. thomas jefferson did, you can have tyranny through democracy. in other words, for instance, if our congress is doing things outside the constitution just because it's decided it can do it, that's tyranny. it's tyranny by congress but it's still tyranny. the idea that individuals can vote to steal somebody's wealth because somebody wants to redistribute it, that's tyranny. you'll notice we don't have a direct democracy, a pure democracy in our constitution. there's checks and balances. there's all kinds of things in there to limit the scope and power of the federal government and to make sure that

individuals can't -- the reason we enter into a government is to protect our bodies and our private property. otherwise, there's no reason to enter into a relationship, a social contract with government. the problem now is the government is using its power and the law to attack them. and so to plunder as bostiat would say and so this is one of the puzzles we would face as a people, among others, what do you do about a situation like this and even when we win elections, and we must, even if you win the elections are these the kind of politicians that have such an understanding of the -- of the dire situation in this country? and it's even more financial. it's constitutional, that they're going to take steps necessary to begin to reverse course. and let me tell you something, it's going to have to be a person of enormous courage because the utopian state is dug in. it's got hundreds of thousands

of bureaucrats. it's got a massive amount of money. it's got the big media on its side. it's got all the innermost of the universities and colleges on its side so it's -- it is -- it is a formidable daunting undertaking and yet it's an undertaking we must take because we don't really have any choice. >> yeah. okay. so along those lines, i did some math. and you got here at about 1:00 today. and in that time the federal debt has increased by a billion dollars, between that moment and now. >> is that california or the whole country? [laughter] >> that's the whole country. [laughter] >> so it's about $150 million an hour, okay? >> 150 million an hour? >> uh-huh. and so now the federal debt is now nearing the 16 trillion mark, so the question i have for you -- given we're all slaves in one way, shape or form, whether

it's us or the next generation or the one after due to this incredible debt that we're piling up, isn't it over? in some respects having a debt of that size, you know, that's driving us towards utopia. >> we're in utopia. the question is how far do we want to go down this path and where's it going to take us? i had thomas sull on my program this week, wednesday. and my last question was dr. saul, are we going to be a constitutional republic in 10 or 20 or 30 years or what? and he said and i'm speaking for myself, not the reagan library -- and he said and he said if we lose the next election, we're not. if you talk to walter williams, he says, it's over. i guess what i'm saying is, if

you listen to ronald reagan, and this is the place to listen to him and he's my last quote in the book, and i always turn to him for some optimism, not pollyanna phony optimism but optimism. and he says in the first inauguration in january 1981 and i paraphrase, he said -- these things are not inevitable. we can take steps to try and begin to turn them around. but if we don't, then they are inevitable. and that's right. there's some plans out there, whether it's paul ryan or and rand paul that are serious efforts to start the process, to begin the process of gradually unraveling this. i don't know if the american people -- see, here's the problem. and i've said this on the air, have too many americans

surrendered to this? have too many americans have been conquered by this? bought off of this through entitlements? are there too many mal contents out there because they are incapable of taking care of themselves. there are too many pollyanna blissfully living their lives or are there still enough in us who believe in the american spirit and still enough of us who have the old american mindset in psychology? in other words, do we outnumber them or do they outnumber us? and we're going to find out pretty damn soon. and the bottom line is this, one election can't reverse the course. but one election can pull us over the edge. it's much harder to build a society and to nurture traditions and institutions that man has known for thousands of

years -- it's much harder to do that than destroy them. you can destroy them in one presidency. the notion that we sit here wondering if the supreme court -- if one justice on the supreme court is going to uphold that individual mandate and other parts of obamacare or not tells you how much the society's in decline. one supreme court justice should not be able to make that decision and yet he can or she can. think about this, a temporary congress -- a congress that doesn't even exist anymore, the congress that came in with obama with super majorities in the senate and the house -- they rammed through obamacare against the will of the american people. that congress is gone. their dirty work remains because they tried to institutionalized their activities through the

bureaucracy, which is working full time right now to put this in place to counter any future election. that's what they're up to. they're trying to get the courts -- you only really need one justice is my guess, my prediction. they're trying to get the courts to give their stamp of approval. and so one congress, one group of temporary politicians will have forever and fundamentally changed this nation. that is what the constitution was conceived to stop. we didn't just get here today. this has been going on a long time but we're at the point now where the hour is late. that's the point that saul is making, walter williams is making, anybody with their heads screwed on right is making. you're not giving out hemlock tonight, by the way? [laughter] >> i mean -- i mean, if anything this should get you worked up.

[laughter] [applause] >> because i'm going to tell you something. the idea, that we, this generation of americans is going to surrender the greatest nation on the face of the earth of this people is mind-boggling to me. the idea -- we have a man here that fought in iwo jima as well as my grandfather that we have men and women in uniform who have fought against enemies, foreign enemies, to protect this society. the idea that we defeated hitler and tojo and mussolini. the idea that we fought a civil war to free the black people from slavery -- the idea that this nation and all the blood that's come and all the blood that's gone and all the men and women who've died to preserve it, that we, this generation,

that we're going to sit on our asses and let this people take this country is beyond my imagination. [applause] [applause] >> levin for president. [applause] >> okay. so -- >> do you know how many audio bites they have on me. that's not going to work. [laughter] >> well, last question for me and then we're going to go to the audience -- but it's a good lead-in from what you just said. so what can the average american do about this? >> well, the average american can take their children and

their grandchildren and instill in them the american spirit, to speak out in the classroom when they have some marxist know-nothing, whether they're a teacher in public school or college or university and challenge them. i did it as a kid and let the chips fall where they may. it's time to stand up. it's time for young people to understand that this generation is destroying this country. and that despite the fact that our political leaders, whatever they call themselves -- these political leaders are out there talking about how they're taking care of them with the student loans and all the rest -- those political leaders are destroying them. that is so massive. this that when you consider the entitlements as well as the -- you talk about $16 trillion, that's over $100 trillion, when you include everything. our economy produces $15 trillion in value every year. that debt is never going to be

paid back. it's impossible. and if we continue along this road, what saul and williams -- even ryan is saying we have two years -- what they're saying there is a point of no return when the system collapses. and when the system collapses, the civil society collapses. and when the civil society collapses, all the things that you take for granted, people, generally being respectful to people, people generally reaching out to other people -- all that goes. you'll see violence in the street. you'll see other things going on, what you start to see in greece and these other places. ..

i've never seen so many people quoted in a waving of the of independence and the constitution. then give you 10 years ago never gave it a second thought. now i bet it is at the front of your minds and it is with tens of millions of us. the fact of the matter is, tens of millions of us love this country. we don't want it fundamentally transformed. we have to get to as many other people as we can, we cannot come educate you do not trying to pat myself on the back. that is the purpose of this book. i consider part of the purpose of my radio program has to a number of my brothers and sisters in broadcasting, which is why we are under attack for the time by these utopian

statists. the fact of the matter is we have a good message. liberty is a good message. private property rights is a good message. constitutional messages to what is a mass? fantasies, funny paredes is,, they create misery. i mean, all they ever say is we need to spend more, we need to create more. the government needs to get a karen baker. unemployment, now over 80%. they are plotting today that it is 8.3%. that is unheard of. it is 36 months in a row of over 8% unemployment. that's never happened before or since the great depression anyway. but i don't know that it's ever happened. look at the housing market. it is a disaster again because of the community reinvestment act of more government social engineering. these masterminds don't know what they are doing. but they won't stop and not only won't they stop, they could

demand more and more authority. they are fanatics. and even when you argue with them on sax, they don't want to hear the facts. even when you show them experience, they don't want to know about experience. weighty tome versailles and the phone and they are not using knowledge, they accuse you of that. what they are doing it pushing a fanaticism. they are pushing a dogma, a religion of sorts at the well and they are not going to be taught out of it. we have to talk more and more americans into our position. and make sure that we vote and even then it may not work. but we've got to give it a try. >> we are going to take questions from the audience. clap back if i could just ask you one favor. we have staff that room in the house that microphone. so if you raise your hand, they look at a microphone.

is great until you get the microphone to ask your question and introduce yourself and we'll go from there. so do we have one over here? played here. >> my name is wendy randolph. my question to you is, why are the republican nominee is not taking your rhetoric coming using your rhetoric or creating their own rhetoric to address all of these issues rather than attack one another when this is more important that they can address the issues they just addressed with this here this evening? behemoth quietly attacking each other and not get into these issues? >> i think they are doing both, but they are so constant and the other part is getting lost. and i regret that they are doing it because i'm not an idealist. i'm realist. i know one candidate pasties and

more. he thinks that is his way to the nomination. we have a beautiful opportunity right now it's a race marred man running, all of whom can be discussing these things at length everywhere they go and not be dead by well, gee, did he pay taxes in 1974 and and a bit disappointed that? who gives a, i don't care. the fact of the matter is that we have got to persuade the american people to our point of view. or it's over. in the end, the american people will decide what kind of country they want to have. benjamin franklin said it. from the last day of the constitutional convention, he was so ill he wrote it and gave it to james wilson, the fellow delegate from pennsylvania to read and at the end of the speech, what franklin sands and i paraphrase again, the constitution will work for a period of time, but then the people will decide if they want

to live under despotism or not. and if they want to live under despotism, then they deserve it. you have to keep in mind, these men who are berated and smeared by the left of the time come the framers of the constitution, after the revolutionary war was over, they could time it is done in so many countries, taken power or appointed a king. if george washington wanted to be king, he probably would've been king. they were constantly concerned about restraining power, including their own because they understood the notion of liberty. so to answer your question is, we have what we have, they say what they say and they cannot rely on politicians to do the work that we need to do. now, we need to get the right politicians in office to stop the others and to at least begin

the process, but we have got to reacquaint the american people or allow the american people with their heritage. that is what we have to do. so the more you are in yourselves with information, this is a perfect place. the reagan library, host of college, my books, other people's books come in that sort thing. the more you inform yourself, and the better you will be a patrick henry and patricia henry. >> very good. over here. mark, thank you verbena minch. >> thank you for that. where are you? >> just to your left. my question is, i would feel that a fair amount of thinner jumpers and i might ask your life that i would look around to what is going on around me and i see the government lie to me and i think the media lie to me constantly, relentlessly. i don't know what they would do. my thought is, we should come

every politician should say i am running against two people. the democrats there and i'm running against you, the media. he lied to the public. here's the facts. if i'm wrong, you tell me that i should be a politician and i shouldn't be running. but if i'm right, i wanted people to question you, too and not just my opponent. what do you think? >> i've said some thing similar to that. they should run against the media and their opponents. but would have, kodak have, should have. they are what they are. i come out of pennsylvania. the republican party was a week, mash party like in so many states and conservatives need to take this party over as a practical matter and they need to do it and they need to do it fast. [applause] but you have to have a party

that is as resolute and aggressive for the cause of constitutionalism as you have a party that is as resolute undergrowth of against the cause of constitutionalism. the left never gives up. our price telling us why they can't do things. the left never gives up. i'm not going to use the form near the reagan library to give my opinion about the republican leadership. if you listened it to show you know exactly what i think. i've never seen such timid -- i. just that i wasn't going to do this. [laughter] [cheers and applause] i'm aghast. just don't do that sort of thing. but to answer your question, i think we'll manderson and jefferson in the fellas at me, of course politicians lie. it's why we tell you not to give them so much power. that's why we divided up the

government. that's why we enumerated authority and we have all the states out there. politicians were great. we would need to divide up our and enumerate power and need all of these states. we have a president like we have today. i'm going to tell you from my point of view again speaking for myself is always, at least right now, we need to plug the hole. what that means to me is whoever the nominee is and i've said before, if it's an orange juice can that is fine by me. [applause] this has to be stopped so we can take a breath, take a look at all the damage that has been done along the horizon, begin the process of unraveling the common dig deep into the bureaucracies and find all these little appointees in the amount

could eliminate most of these regulations, which are onerous, destructive of individuals and their private property and blue sky to begin a process. that process cannot begin that this administration. and i want to tell you something else. i also think jefferson and madison and washington would say, you don't live in our constitutional republic anymore. and they would be right. so, you know, i want to play along and go along with the rest of the team. you know, what to say everything is going to be okay. we just have to win one election. it's not true. it's just not true when you look at this. and people who are honest intellectually about it and look at these things for most of their lives as i have. we know the truth if that

doesn't mean everybody in america feels that right now, but there are americans feeling it right now. if you produce things, you feel it right now. if you work for energy companies come you feel right now. if you work for health care companies come you feel right now. if you work for coal companies you feel right now. if you're a small business trying to get underway with all these h.r. rules that are being, you know, unloaded on come you are starting to feel it right now. so, one of the last places that feels that a couple miles away as hollywood. they don't feel any of it. so it takes very, very courageous men and women in hollywood in my humble opinion to stand up to this sort of thing, not only because of the atmosphere they are, that because they do not experience the sort of thing that is being experienced throughout the rest of the country when somebody tries to open a business or keep one open around someone is

trying to -- even a trucker -- i get teamsters calling me saying this is crazy. i get -- you know, you have heard them, all kinds of people time to how they go out of business and so forth. there's definitely a fundamental transformation going on and i think it is going to take ultimately 50 years to undo it, but in two, three, four, five years, if the american people elected this brand of leadership comment they can't be undone. how do you undo it? so, i tell you this not to depress you. i tell you this to energize you. you have a reason to get up in the morning, a reason to get involved, a reason to do all the things you need to do is inactive if the defendant. and you know, that phrase that is always darkest before the time, how do you think they felt

during the american revolution dragging on for eight and a half years. how do you think they felt during any one of the battles of the civil war? how do you think they felt during world war ii when they were facing down the worst forms of genocidal maniacs? how do you think they felt? we have no none of those dangers, but we have a job to do, which is in many ways more complicated. because it is occurring within our country, the instrumentality of the government and the law are being twisted and used against us exactly how woodrow wilson and fdr in others wanted them to be. so it is like if you accept what is going on, except the fact of it going on, not accept the result come you will be in a much better position and motivated to do something about it. and the legal and legitimate and political way. >> appear in the balcony. >> don't jump. [laughter]

>> thank you first off. i'm a high school software. every morning the very few in the class say the pledge of allegiance before a gorgeous flag and most of the students market openly. others sat quietly, but it disgusts me to see these kids make jokes out of it, plays on words of laugh at it and enjoy it. it just makes me want to throw out. and i want to know how i can in some might influence these people and be an influence on other people to share the greatness of the country and undo what has been done to disrespect our flag and teach people what is coming out of their actions. [applause] >> everybody in here as part of you. i'm going to tell you that. that is number one. [applause]

and you are smarter than everyone of those kids who sit on their hands or mock the flag. let me tell you some them. i can't even tell you how many men and women throughout our history died just making sure that flag was held up in battle. it disgusts me, too. you look at the iwo jima monument, with those men were doing there. that is one example that thousands of thousands of times that kerry and american flag, even the civil war, they were shot first if they couldn't get the general or the command are and so forth. same during the revolutionary war when they hold the flag of the various colonies or the new country, all through out europe it occurred in a set back and smugly mock and laugh. me tell you some pain. i don't know how we fix that, but maybe you can pull one or two aside and educate them. one or two at a time is the best way to do it. i often see in the and hear

educated one liberal at a time. [laughter] the truth is i'm probably not educating any of them. and that is why i have concluded that there are people out there -- i called the delegate types the drugs because there's nothing we can do or say to convince them of anything. those people must be defeated, so the way you defeat them is to get to the other people who are paying attention or who are not engaged in who has some kind of an open mind are open attitude about these things. and that is what she do. you find out if there's a couple kids in the class that they can attack you and have a little chat with them? to know how many people died carrying out flat? and if the kids a loser, move onto another one. there's plenty of kids to talk to. [applause] >> mark, i'm a very different

subject than on current events, given the use in washington in middle east between israel and iran and mixed signals coming out of the white house for mr. you know who, my question is this. do you feel in your opinion that prime minister netanyahu, one of the greatest leaders the world has ever had [applause] will in fact do what he has to do to protect his people? t. think he will unilaterally go in? and if so, when and what will the repercussions be if he does? >> i spoke to him yesterday. [laughter] i don't think that country, with those people are going to allow another holocaust. i just don't think there's any way. that is a very powerful tiny little country that is massively outnumbered and massively

outgunned, but i do not think they are going to allow the islamic nut jobs in tehran to get a nuclear weapon if they can stop it. the problem is we are not arming them with the arms they need. these deep penetrating bombs, the type of jets that they need. so not only do they have to figure out where the locations are that they have to hit, they have got to figure out how to get air, water coordinates to use, how to fix the ordinance, change the ordinance, how to get back, then to do with the massive onslaught that is likely to occur what they are done from the gaza strip, from lebanon, perhaps in the muslim brotherhood now in saudi arabia. they are surrounded. except for jordan, which is basically teetering.

so what i regret and really regret and great disguise is at a time like this to be the president sending mixed signals and i guarantee you if ronald reagan was president of the united states, they would think twice about continuing with its nuclear arms program. i think reagan would make it abundantly clear that not only do we stand with israel and not only will we give them the weapons they need, we will use the weapons ourselves if we have to. that is what i think would have been. [applause] but now, i can't tell you when this is going to happen or what is going to happen, but i can tell you those people will not allow themselves to be annihilated. >> a couple weeks ago we lost a great petrie at and a person

that had tremendous moral courage, andrew breitbart [applause] he understood very clearly that it leaves the liberals have been very good at controlling pop culture and defining cool. do you think conservatives and can grab that mantle back from the liberals? >> i think we try. you know, i think we have to try everything we possibly can. i love hearing the words that my good friend andrew breitbart was strong, courageous and we had to do what he does and one of my colleagues comes under this enormous attack and where is everybody? the run for the hills.

so, i don't know if we can't or will, but i know we need to try. one of the great teams he did his creative institution. there's many young people working at breitbart.com. he launched a new site and it's got a lot of young people over there who are -- i guess i'll cry them draperies family. and they are going to keep at it. we all have our rules the mind. and this is what i'm trying to stay. each of you can go back to your community and make a difference. i am not just famous. i am saying it is the only chance we have. we sit there on election night in cg, are people going to be motivated? will do something about it. you're sick of the local republican party? do something about it. because at the republican party doesn't do something about it, i think the republican party will go the way of the week party at

some point. don't clap yet because if that happens, then the democratic party will have power for a very, very long time because conservatives will be split for a long time. it takes time and effort party elections have been miserable for the last hundred years. so, to answer your question, there is so much to do and it becomes overwhelming if you allow it all to pile on. but if you focus on not the macro, but the micro, which you can do in your home on your street with your family, with your neighbors, when you get into base at them and bring these things up, you are doing what the colonists did before the revolution. that is what you're doing. when you bring these things up and discuss bob, it do you know about bush than those discussed philosopher before the revolution? you're talking about batman. you're talking about some people

are educated. many people were not. you are talking about subsistence farmers and not sort of thing. learning about lock and montesquieu. you don't even have to learn a lot. you just have to learn enough because i'm going to tell you something. very many people in here or summit came at the book signing and said i was a liberal and i'm not anymore. either any of you here? [applause] but what happened to those people? let me tell you something. when you see the light, it's a great game. when you see the light, seriously, it liberates your mind, doesn't it? all this hate, all this jealousy, all this nonsense, all this i wish, when you understand liberty, when you finally crossover, it is something you're willing to fight for.

it is something you're willing to defend. that is the spirit. that's the american spirit. that's the american heritage. and we -- you have a responsibility as an american citizen to say that responsibility. there's no magic answer. i don't have one and none exists. and you know, there's also point out which the politicians we just can't keep saddling either. i talked about in my opinion they need to defeat -- the need to stop the damage and i think it is particularly crucial in this election cycle. at the damage is stopped after this election cycle and i think we the people really need to focus on getting statesmen and office and they are there -- they are there. they are jim demint, brand paul, marco rubio, ron johnson,

mike leigh, these are new. these are the future i think. you can look in the house at the paul ryan, michele bachmann and others like that, steve caines, louis come back, there is a core they are. the fact of the matter is conservatism is mainstream. conservatism is constitutionalism. one last thing. i'm long winded here. but i've been pushing for the last three years on my show with liberty and tyranny, what this book, where x-ray can is this notion of constitutional conservative than because, you know, people say we need a new program, a new plan. we have a plan. it is called the constitutionalism. we have a plan called capitalism. we have an idea. it is called liberty.

but they have is a mass, bureaucracies, bureaucrats, redistribution of wealth and many people understand what a joy of liberty gave been there the liberated from all this other nonsense, then it will be like our founding and we will get our country back. and if they don't, if they expect entitlements, if they can be bought off for a monthly check, then we are done. >> okay, we have time for one last question. >> mr. levin, i thank you for your time. i am an american and my question is kind of a technical question. >> do you have your papers? [laughter] >> are not allowed to ask for it. >> my question is, i believe one of our problems is we have too many career politicians and i would like your thoughts on how

do we implement term limits in congress to eliminate career politicians and get new blood, if you will into congress and new blood that may run for the presidency in the future? so i'd like your thoughts on this. >> part of the problem is amending the constitution. you're talking about term limits, which i agree with. the convention, which i strongly oppose because they just cannot -- what a freak show convention that would be. i don't think we can do better than our founders. and a runaway convention will be a runaway country. so i just do not comfortable with that. as a young man i said i have this letter. they said now i can imagine a group of americans today can do better than they