. . >> talking about the dangers of

centralized control and overreaching government and what a profound effect it can have on society. now we should ask the question can big government he stopped? james antle is the author of a new book, "devouring freedom" and the editor of daily caller news foundation and the a senior editor at "the american spectator." he is also a contributing editor to american conservative. he is a frequent guest on television and radio and he resides in virginia so close by. i want you to welcome james antle the author of "devouring freedom" can big government be stopped? [applause] >> good morning. thank you first of all evil for men heritage foundation for having me for confiding for

conservative principles. my book "devouring freedom" is a book that asked the question can big government ever be stopped? and the focus of it is really what are the political prospects for limited government? we have talked about limiting the federal government for a very long time yet we don't seem to as a movement and the republican party as a political party made a lot of headway in that direction and a couple of summers ago barack obama promised us a summer for coverage which did not pan out so well but i think this summer has really been the summer of big government. we have seen through exposures through various leaks a lot of details emerging about the national surveillance program and the extent to which ordinary americans are ensnared in the datamining and the surveillance that is supposed to be protecting the country. we have seen a lot of the flaws in obamacare. we have watched implementation of the affordable care at sort of creep and moan and we have seen sort of this train starting

to run off the tracks and i think we are starting as a country to see what's in store for us as this health care loss and bolts. nancy pelosi said that we need to pass a bill to find out what was in it. feel by mid-and jay carney yesterday at a press conference promised to call the different provisions of the bill and we were going to really like it but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. we are starting to see that delayed provisions of the law so even as they'll bummed this ration is finding out what is and if they don't seem to like it very much. so that has sort have been a problem and i think overall with the sequester and all of the horrifying omissions that were made about how the economy was going to collapse and we have the sequester and airplanes won't be able to fly in school buildings would all be bulldozed and everybody would lose their jobs.

we have not seen many of those dire predictions come to pass but we have seen maybe a government can survive a little bit of a diet. so in this summer of a government i think we need to ask ourselves is there anything we can do to sort of begin to roll it back and sequester obviously while a nice start is certainly completely inadequate to the job of containing massive federal spending. we are talking about number one talking about reducing the rate. we are not talking about cutting government will make talk about the sequester except there are some defense cuts. the only thing that is really being cut in normal terms in terms of spending less money is actually the constitutional function of the federal government but the unconstitutional functions of the government are not to be cut but even within the confines of how washington defines spending cuts we are talking about 2

cents on the dollar and even that is spread out over a very long period of time. so we are talking about rolling back big government. it's going to require a lot more than the sequester. before reagan can talk about can big government ever be stopped a lot of people want to ask what is the government? do we have a big government? i would argue to you that we have a very big federal government. between 1787 and 1987 we never had a federal budget across the trillion dollar threshold. in 1987 we finally had a trillion dollar federal budget. it only took us 15 years -- though it took us 200 years to get to 1 trillion it only took 15 years after that to get to $2 trillion in the size of the federal budget. it only took us to five years after that to get to the first 3 trillion-dollar federal budget now we run budget deficits

annually that are a trillion dollars. we have had deficits and large, almost as large as the entire federal budget was as recently as when will clinton was president. i would argue that's a pretty big government and that's an unhealthy trajectory and government growth. unfortunately we crossed all of those trillion and 2,000,000,000,003 trillion dollar thresholds while we had republican presidents. so there is a lot of work to be done in that area. a second thing that i would save measures how big of a government we have is the size of our national debt. we now have a gross national debt that is bigger than the united states economy. i would say that's the sign of the big government. but, even the gross national debt doesn't really measure accurately all of the money that we owe, all the promises the

federal government has made that it doesn't have the money to pay for. if you look at that, we have unfunded liabilities to federal programs including major entitlement programs, social security and medicare well in excess of $80 trillion. by some measures our unfunded liabilities are twice the size of the world economy. so i would argue to you that's a pretty big government. so then what do we do in terms of returning to the founding fathers vision of a federal government that is strong enough to protect the united states and defend its interests but limited in scope, limited by the constitution, limited in terms of its ambitions and its claims on our lives, on our money, on our options and our freedoms. the case i make and "devouring freedom" is that they government does take your freedom. even legitimate functions of

government, even things that government needs to do cost money, takes money out of the private economy and limits your personal choices. some of those limits are necessary for society to function and i would argue is the government gets too big and grows too large and becomes too intrusive the reduction in choices becomes unacceptable beyond what the founders envisioned. also when we have a government that is essentially rogue like the government we have now it limits a lot of our political options. there are investments that the levels of government would like to make an things ranging from the state level and local level with education that they can't make because the public employees pensions, they are paying retired public employees this money instead of being able to provide services for the people who live in their communities and the federal government is starting to see the discretionary spending in the federal budget be crowded

out by the size of the entitlement programs and by the size of the interest on the national debt. so that limits our political options that we can have their elected representatives as a free people. i think there are three major things they need to happen before we can start looking at this. the first is we need to have a limited government political party. right now the republican party has been a rhetorically pro-limited government party and there are i note in the book. where the republican party has lived up to this rhetoric. the three historical periods i note our during the truman administration what they call the do-nothing congress under robert taft, the congress that came in with ronald reagan when he was elected in 1980 on the first year or two of the gingrich congress that came in 1994. most of you are a little younger than me and quite a bit younger

than me but i used to joke that the knack only had one good album and the gingrich had two year -- 2 good years when it comes to government spending. we need if we are going to have limited government in this country a political party that actually advocates limited government. we have a political party in the democrats that are circling not shy about advocating for much bigger government and president obama is very unapologetic in saying there aren't other institutions in american life to keep us together besides if the federal government. that is obviously not true. there are churches and community organizations. there are families. the free market is a thing that we all do together but that is a vision of government that is praised by the democratic party. there needs to be something that stands against that. that brings me to my second . the second thing that we need is

to continue to have people like rand paul and ted cruz and mike lee and before he came came to hear to tank containing at heritage jim demint fighting within the republican party to reform the party and to hold it to the principles and the platforms and taken into live up to those principles when it's time to govern. i think that is fundamentally important. that is why working groups like heritage action and club for growth and freedom works and young americans for liberty and so many tea party groups throughout the country are doing is so important because we are creating a constituency for limited government within the republican party and we are changing the incentives for republican politicians. it is no longer a good career move to be a republican politician who advocates for bigger government. the reason for that is you could actually lose your job in a primary if that is a realistic possibility for politicians who

have been saved for many years can point to good grades in some conservative groups scorecards but still when push came to shove and there were major votes like the medicare prescription drug in a fit, the billion dollar wall street yell out, so many votes to block the implementation of obamacare where some of these republicans were nowhere to be found. now their political incentives for them to live up to their principles because people are holding them accountable. milton friedman the great free-market economists said that while it's good to elect the right people, thinking you're going to change policy and change politics by just selecting the right people is unrealistic because you're never going to elect enough of the right people. what you need to do is change the political incentives so that the wrong people will find it in their best interest to do the right thing. and then the third point i would raise is, we cannot allow

obamacare, the affordable care act, to remain intact. people joke about how the house has held 20 ,-com,-com ma 30 ,-com,-com ma going on 40 votes to repeal obamacare and they say why are they wasting their time with this? to repeal bills won't go anywhere in and this president won't sign them. the supreme court has ruled on this. why are we bothering to do this? i would say there's a very good reason for why we are trying to keep obamacare repealed a live issue and i think is the fundamental issue in terms of whether we are ever again going to return to something like a limited government in this country. obamacare is not going to work and you can already see the administration is kind of perceiving this when they are burying a lot of the enforcement provisions ahead of the midterm elections because they know people are going to lose their jobs as a result so let's delay

it until we don't have to face the voters again for a couple of years unless, some of the benefits kick in first before the cost. so obamacare is not going to work and they are not going to be verifying when people are eligible for the subsidies that obamacare offers when their income requirements really meet the standards to receive the subsidies so the costs of four components of obamacare are going to go up in the next year. so we are going to see them bend the cost curve over the long-term and negative way. the way the problems with obamacare what the result is one of two ways and there are only two choices here. with the democrats and liberals are going to say is everything wrong with obamacare isn't product of what they have allowed to remain in the private sector hands. they are going to save the insurance companies which even though they are mandating that we buy insurance companies products they're going to say

it's r more government involvement in health care, not less. the governmengovernmen t is the only major institution in american life for when it fails in some way the answers to give up more money and more power. i can't think of any other institution that when it fails we say it needs to have more of our money and more power and more ability to do things but that is essentially have the federal government works. so it will either move towards much bigger government role in health care toward a single-payer system like they have in canada and european countries were what people do is we will repeal and reform obamacare. we will gradually untangle the web of mandates and regulations and subsidies and began to promote a genuine free market health care in this country. there are really -- though there is really no third way. obamacare as it exists currently is not a stable situation. it's not going to remain under

the current circumstances forever. so, if we move in a more free-market direction we will also see our entitlements move any more free-market direction. we will see the claims of our federal government on our lives in their pocket books diminished if we move in the direction of a single-payer, if we move in a direction where we look back at the first two years of obamacare as a good period of time in terms of private-sector influence on health care we will never be able to achieve a political movement. that is why obamacare is a fundamental issue and every boat that can happen that points to the structural problems of this law and keeps the idea of reforming and yes repealing this law as a live political issue is still a worthwhile political exercise even if they cannot achieve immediate results.

you have to lay the groundwork for this in no way that we were able to lay the groundwork for repealing the catastrophic health care component of medicare. that bill became such a disaster that even the democrats were willing to vote to repeal it and we have seen even the democrats have been willing to go to repeal the 1099 reporting environments under obamacare for small businesses and democrats in the senate have been willing to repeal the medical device stats to obamacare. we had more than two dozen democrats both for provisions that would suspend the individual mandate and codified the delay of the employer mandate. so i think that this needs to be a fight that we continue to fight. i don't think we can afford to give up and i think that this is the central front in rolling back big government. reforming the republican party having a limited political party

in this country and actually standing up against obamacare and with that i would open the floor to any questions that you might have. >> thank you. that was a great talk. [applause] some questions? yes, right there. >> hi. i'm spencer. i go to college of william and mary. in our way to limit government more generally is in their to be played by the courts when it comes to striking down more laws that exceed the commerce clause? is that the ace in the whole that we have then is there any realistic chance we have of that or is it going to have to be congress entirely in a different presidenpresiden t? >> is kind of interesting because the constitution was designed with this idea that we had limited government with enumerated powers and interstate commerce actually meant commerce

that happened between the states but we somehow redefined that so that basically anything that happens breathing, existing even expiring counts as a form of interstate commerce. so we kind of stood that on its head and the other part of the constitution we stood on its head is it somehow seen as illegitimate for the federal courts to strike down laws that federal laws that are outside the enumerated powers under the constitution. but it's perfectly okay you sling using the 14th memo to strike down state laws that don't touch on any constitutional provision. i would like to see us move to a point where the composition of the judiciary is such that it was more at that than the restraining of the federal government. i think there are two problems with that. one is a lot of conservative jurists because they have

persisted for so long judicial activism in the overturning of state laws have become more reluctant to move against federal laws particularly federal laws that have strong support over a long period of time so they would be reluctant to second-guess congress in that way. secondly it's become very difficult to confirm judges who are actually strict constitutionalists though we have kind of had to find covert ways to get conservative judges confirmed and then we never really know exactly -- you know if someone is a conservative judge based on some of their institutional affiliations but you don't really know what kind they are going to be so i think would a very difficult to roll back a big government primarily or even substantially through the judiciary and i think the obamacare case proved that. there certainly were not republican justices on that the court to have a different

outcome but clearly that just didn't happen. >> you mentioned for good senators who can see the value of limited government but there are a lot of republicans who don't see the value of limited government. those four senators had to win in republican primaries against candidates who saw big government is good. talk about the value of the republican primary. >> think the most important thing if we are owing to have rather putnam party be a truly limited government parties to have competitive republican primaries and the fact that you see so many big government republicans who are afraid of competitive primaries and afraid of state conventions where conservative axis have a voice or even trying to alter the presidential primary process to make them less competitive to make establishment candidate more favored indicates to you how important this is in the fight for the soul of the republican party. not all of these primary challengers are going going to

win and even some of the primary challengers going to the candidates who win their primaries and go on to lose the general election. maybe they just weren't very good candidates but the fact of the matter is even in those cases they are sending a message to the republican establishment that you just use conservative rhetoric during campaign time but your votes don't reflect the conservative values when it comes time to govern. it sends a message to those republicans that they need to actually listen to their constituents and they need to be a little scared. when you look at a guy like robert bennett who had been in the senate for several terms and when you look at orrin hatch having to fight -- although he'll smugly prevailed and when you look at the entire party infrastructure and in kentucky mobilizing against rand paul and losing i think that sends a large message to other republicans and i think it's influenced the republican leadership. it sent the republican

leadership in message that the tea party is a factor to be reckoned with. >> mitchell at tennessee university. and listening to things that i had a variety of questions about spending and how that might be affected by inflation and parties etc. but there was one that seems it seems like this whole issue in general and not just what you talk about that including that in everything else seems to come down to something that has some very deep inclinations. at what point would you say if ever that we would go past the point of political finagling and political fighting and start a real fight to actually perform some lifo section on the government going past the political process? at what point do we go -- to wanat. >> i think one of the things that you have to keep in mind is that the government, the

government has grown largely because the american people have been willing to allow it to grow and have actually desired a lot of its growth. many of the biggest federal spending programs are the ones with the most popular support. but i talk in my book about the fact that there are a lot of people who say sensible things about cutting federal spending but when they're asked about which programs they would like to cut all the programs they want to cut our small part to the federal budget and the programs that they want to protect argued a huge part of the federal government. there was a woman interviewed by "the new york times" who is a tea party activist and she said and i don't remember the exact words but she basically said i want small government and i want unreformed social security too. you can't have that. over at dick morris before the election said and by the way did

morris said that rummy needs to start -- needs to not talk about medicare or medicaid social security or the defense budget. now you have just ruled out basically 80% of the federal budget and actually little bit more than that so before we talk in revolutionary terms there needs to be a revolution in terms of the public's view of these things. i think we are a long way away from where we can say this is entirely something that has been imposed on us by these faraway distant bureaucrats although i think there is a substantial element of truth but we have to look within ourselves a look at the voters. that's the voters are demanding a lot of us in the democratic party became a big government party because of clients are

dependent on government and demand more and more government all the time. >> steve from bethel university. you mentioned conservative senators from kentucky utah and texas generally the most conservative senators are from rural districts. realistic -- realistically if they party you will have to have more senators from purple states and congressman from suburban districts that are elected and a limited government candidates. typically in these more urban or suburban districts or purple states who are not going to have the more conservative candidates winning in primary so i'm concerned how realistic is that to expect the party to be truly taking over by limited government candidates? >> that definitely is a major challenge because what we have seen really since the rise of

the conservative movement, we have really only had to movement conservatives nominated for president by the republican party with barry goldwater in 1964 who went on to lose in ronald reagan who won two terms. george w. bush who i have a lot of criticisms of him and mike book was definitely somewhat influenced by the conservative movement and had some movement conservatives in his administration as his father did that he was not really himself a philosophically small government kind of guy. i agree that a big problem in terms of actual conservatives winning the republican nomination is the fact that a lot of the conservatives who qualified or who are seen as qualified to be president, from rural districts or they come from southern states and it

becomes more of her cultural battle in the minds of a lot of people. i think the other problem is that frequently what ends up happening is the conservative candidate who appeals most to grassroots conservatives in the republican primaries and hear him talking about presidential primaries tends to be the candidate the conservative who doesn't have the organization of the money to go the distance in a fight with the establishment candidate in the conservative who is maybe a bit that are prepared and has more money and better organization tends to for whatever reason not connect as well with the grassroots. i think those are two problems. i think though the key and that is why i talk about the ideal free market populism. i think republicans and purple and blue states and suburban districts have to identify other government programs, areas where they government is affecting voters in those districts can run on those issues. i think you can have

nationalized principles but you can't always nationalize issues and you have to be speaking to issues that actually affect the voters in your district and in your state. there are a lot of criticisms i have with some of the blue state republicans like giuliana -- giuliani. even though they were liberal in the core issue they were emphasiziemphasizi ng their campaigns and those were the conservative issues. >> lets give them a round of applause. [applause] >> thanks everybody. >> containing with a theme of the power of the state benjamin wiker obtained a ph.d. at vanderbilt university has taught at many colleges. or wiker were moral darwinism how he became hedonists showing out darwinism completely undermined ethical foundations of christianity judaism and islam.

it's materialism cosmology is incompatible with natural law. he has also written code written books the architects of the culture of death and the 10 books that screwed up the world. his book today is "worshipping the state" how liberalism became our state religion please welcome dr. wiker. [applause] >> thank you very much and thank you phyllis for bringing me here once again. it is dr. wiker. c. i'm so sorry. >> everyone does that, so it's not a sin. worshiping the states how liberalism became our state religion. the title of my book is obviously a little in your face i guess you would say. it's rather outlandish claims so it seems. of implies that liberals worship the state and second that liberalism itself has become a

kind of established religion. that brings us to an obvious set of questions. first of all this is just overblown rhetoric to sell a book or etc. that liberalism really has become our stabber state religion? and liberals somehow do in fact worship the state? we can add on top of this what does it matter? what does it matter? let me begin with that last question first. what does it matter if liberalism is in fact a religion or at least functions like a religion? because if it functions like one and if it in fact is a religion then christians and other opponents of liberalism can litigate to establishment of a worldview and they mean this proposal quite seriously as a new and effective strategy. christians and other black eye to folks could tables on liberal

secularism by actively bringing cases to establish it as a stated worldview. the federal agencies and even in the courts. now the success of this kind of endeavor will depend on a well-developed argument showing that liberalism is in fact an old only functioning like a religion but actually is a religion so that its establishment by the federal government violates the first amendment. that is what worshiping the state does in a longer argument that we could have today so i'm providing a quick overview. so we can ask that question, is secularism, liberal secularism a kind of religion? now that's a strong claim but it's not one that i can -- if you look at the work among

others of amelio gentilly and the story of michael thurlow weed and most recently on the 20th century political religions like communism fascism and nazism. we find one of the most interesting effects of secularization in the west was that the secular state very soon became an object of worship and here i would love to bring in as in all cases we should a quote by chesterton. once abolish god jesters and said and the government becomes the god. whatever the people do not believe in something beyond the world they will worship the world but above all they will worship the strongest thing in the world. now the strongest thing in the world now is the modern secular state and that is why it has

become an object of worship. that is why it has become sacred or made sacred trade we can historically trace this sacral a station of the secular political realm back to the french revolution. he did have a purely secular civil government putting itself forward with its own civil religion meant to displace christianity and it's simply a matter of fact that since the french revolution in one form or another you have these political religions arising nazism communism nationalism and so forth and that is why at the term political religion describe that very phenomenon. that is what these political religions we find that when god is removed and the church is oppressed than the state becomes simultaneously the church and the god worshiped. that is just what happened with the french revolution whether

the religious community or the religion of reason. they are all well studied examples of clinical religions. now those are what i call worshiping the state hard liberalism. i classify it is hard liberalism but in worshiping the state i'm focusing on the modern liberalism that you you are from ear with. that is what we associate with the socialist leaning liberal democracies in europe and now more and more in america. i turn that soft liberalism so that is what we are going to focus on today. in order to understand what kinds we will have to do a history of liberalism manifests its kind of a blueprint for a bigger history of liberalisliberalis m. we need to sort out the confusion that we find at least to start. i'm going to try to provide a

clear understanding of what liberalism is in its essence. i trace it back 500 years not to the 1960s by 500 years to machiavelli is the founder of modern liberalism. so we need to do a lot of history to understand it at its roots in the minority look at the roots of modern liberalism what they find is a dual movement which defines what liberalism really has been over the centuries in one form or another simultaneously a rejection of christianity because it occurs within a christian context and a simultaneous embrace of this world is the highest good, this material world as their ultimate and only hope. liberals in america today are the intellectual heirs of this twofold desire for freedom and of course you own no leader

means free in latin but that's also the root word in liberalism modern liberalism if you trace it back to its origin as defined by the desired, the dual desire to be free from the burdens of christianity, free from christianity and a desire to be free to enjoy this world and its pleasures unhindered by any obstructions. in other words they go together. so liberatioliberatio n from christianity and the reembrace of this world which is actually kind of paganism is the source of the ongoing secularization in the west we have seen over the last two or 300 years and note the obvious thing about secularization. secularization simply means the christianization. it means the liberation from christianity. so this twofold desire that defines liberalism explains why

liberals and up being atheistic rejecting christianity and simultaneously hedonistic immersing themselves in worldly pleasures of the anti-christian liberalism that you find in the aclu and "the new york times" and clinical correctness is what has occurred after 500 years of kind of a liberal revolution -- wrestled revolution which began as a rebellion against christianity and machiavelli is very clear about this. and it's negative goal defines liberalism's positive form. you have to understand that to understand liberalism. the desire to remove the church and replace it with a secular state aimed at providing pleasure gave modern liberalism its structure, police and goals the desire to displace

christianity and replace it with liberalism defines the intellectual core of moral cultural and political goals of liberalism. as the liberals state takes over the form and functions of the church christian church from having any influence in the public square and it uses the power of the state to establish itself as the reigning worldview. that is as the establish worldview just like religion. liberalism is not therefore a narrowly defined political position. it is not neutral. it's a worldview every bit as expensive as the one that it tries to replace. since it's every bit as extensive it functions just like a religion. an established religion with its own specific dogmas and doctrines, that is its own

foundational beliefs held sacred and unquestionable and teachings that follow upon them. that is the origin of political preference. liberalism therefore satisfies what scholars of religion colley functionalist definition. now we can get to understand more about functioning as a religion if we look at this typical beliefs. in latin that what the creed. the typical beliefs of liberalism is a worldview and you will see how extensive it is first liberals tend to be secular minded if not atheistic or they have a predictable array of oral positions to world relativism. that is from the sexual liberation agenda of the abortion and interchangeability of the sexes and the marriage in

and the right to abortion and perhaps infanticide and of course you have euthanasia. that is the right to death. liberals favor of big government and declare that the government should be secular and secularizing. they mean by this that it should hold the basic worldview of his secular liberalism. that is we know means two things. first that the government's drive religion especially christianity out of the public square and into the privatized ghetto on the other side of the great wall of separation. second big government should impose the predictable array of liberal moral positions on everyone. now i would note also they have their own cosmological view. that is the big picture. the way they understand the universe, nature and human

nature is essentially unselfconsciously godless and materialistic. it reduces human beings to the matter of their bodies. one more kind of animal distinct from other animals and provides the state view of what life and death are. life is simply chemical activity and death is the ceasing of chemical activity. that means that liberalism will have a particular way that it views politics and i call this worshiping the state a soulless view of politics. that is, simply defines human nature entirely by its bodily needs and pleasures and the avoidance of pain and it legislates accordingly. so it is not neutral. those are the typical beliefs in liberalism and it should be obvious when covering these things that it presents a full creed. i think some of you are aware of

the full christian creed. it talks about everything. so you've got this extensive view that the creed covers god for liberalism by denying him. it defines the natural world by materialism and defines human nature by materialism usually by godless evolution and defines a human good and evil including sexuality and marriage. a physical base hedonism and therefore determines what should be legal and illegal. that is everything is defined by the pleasure it happens to give the individuals according to their own judgment and finally it defines life and death. dean that extensive it functions exactly like a religion. so you can litigate against it because it functions like one but it also is has one and i can provide in the time allotted a much longer section worshiping this day when you look back at the 19th century and the origins of modern soft liberalism and socialism you find that it really was a

religion ,-com,-com ma that is so self conscious transference of our worship from god to humanity and the worldly transformation of humanity by state power and looking at her last lecture theater trying to replace god you need a lot of power. a modern secular state has to have a lot of power and trying to replace god you have got to have a big budget and that is why we are in a fiscal collapse in the west. that is my attempt to squeeze in that last little history there. i know, i talk fast. so we want to go right to questions. i hope you have many of them. so be right in the back there. >> my name is mark rasmussen. religion as discussed is really hard to find. just about every paper has a

definition about what we are talking about. it seems that the definition you work working premise of functionalist definition, right? >> be in this instance, yes. speak in you talk about best way to approach the definition of religion? >> yeah. that is such a great question. but me say something really surprising. the very notion of religion was actually invented by water and secularism in an attempt to demote christianity to be one more species of the genus no better or worse than any other. so that's a long history and i wish i could go into it. i will pretend that best complexity doesn't exist and answer the second part. we talk about religion today because we have been taught to talk about it in class and different beliefs that way. find that is the liberalism's home turf and on their home turf you can say what do we mean by religion? scholarship at a difficult time explaining what is it?

stem collecting is a great passion. would you die for it? while i don't know. they have had great trouble so they have come up with an essentialist view. it means there out there worshiping they are using religion to function, using it to function like a religion. for the sake of litigating you are on a less difficult situation to rely on a functional account because that is what the court does anyway. that is for examples why i can't remember the court case. i just looked at it that way the supreme court affirmed unanimously that satanism and wicca qualifies protected in state prisons because they have an overly broad definition. that's fine with me. it's broad enough to attach itself to liberalism and therefore it can't be an established worldview pushed by

federal government so it's strategic rather than exact. this is a messy world. >> we have a question down in front here. >> i am madeleine and my question is since the philosophy of classical or listen -- [inaudible] as we currently believe his conservative philosophy when you are talking about this do you view a difference between typically 19th century classical liberalism and what liberal means today? >> i was hoping you would ask that question i thank you for that and they gave her $10 to do that. no, it didn't. i take it up in my book and it's even messier than the religion question because the question is obviously what is at the foundation of classical liberalism? if by that you mean the liberalism you can trace back to

john locke. that is why i treat john locke in great detail in this book. worshiping the state and i'm just going to tell you that i try to get conservatives to understanunderstand that john locke is deeply ambiguous and ultimately affirms the same worldview as the contemporary liberalism you are trying to battle by defining human beings solely as creatures whose desires are just worldly. that is he cuts you off and present a kind of soulless politics in which economics is the highest defines science. in doing that he creates one more kind of soulless politics the result being that conservatives have a difficulty articulating quiet is that morality should enter into political decisions. that is they want to define everything simply by does it contribute to economic life are

not? those are the pleasures of the body. that is a problem so i present a long hard argument of wake-up folks, it's deeper than that. >> going back to the two points you mentioned, the first one regarding the conservative agenda and the second fact you were speaking about the fact that secularism is an attempt to control morality. two points that have not been mentioned. the law in 1905 in france has a huge impact on the definition and that perspective of -- and also one being the fact that

there is an attempt by the french government to define a liberal moral that will be taught in the school which is precisely an attempt to dissuade from the christian morality and a very secularist one and this attempt is very strong precisely because it is linked to traditional perspective and teaching moral -- [inaudible] and the second is to redefine this kind of social fact that is being agreed upon at the beginning of the 20th century with this law in 1905 and this

kind of definition to redefine the interaction between -- [inaudible] >> the third french republic law about separation of church and state. that is really an important law and in fact it's in here. the reason is that our first amendment says nothing about the separation of church and state. you are aware of that, nothing at all. it was the borrowing in a way of the french republic's understanding of the secular separation of church and state that define how it was that the 1947 court case in america was actually litigated and how it determines our understanding of the first amendment today. that is in france who was an attempt to get the catholic church out of everything and set up a purely secular state.

our first amendment says nothing about that. these ideas came from europe buttressed by thomas jefferson since statement it dim. baptists about creating a secular restate that this was done through sort of the liberal takeover of our law studies in america and they go to the takeover of universities worshiping the state as well. it began in the 1860s. the importing radical european secular liberalism to the american universities and you know what the reason was, because no american university could give you a graduate degree. you go to europe in the mid-1800's you got the most radical secular enlightenment views brought back to america. it got ensconced in our universities and by the end end of the 1800's that form the

foundation of our entire understanding of the intelligentsia. part of that was in the law, the development of our law schools as our law schools got contaminated. you have to go back to the 1800's of finding out that one of the things they imported with all due respect was this bad idea from the 1905 law of the third french republic. [laughter] neither of us were there. okay, that's good. you are off the hook. stevia important thing about liberalism is that they tend to be tolerant but they are so intolerant of religion. >> or at least of certain kinds. they have no problem tolerating any religion but christianity. note that. there's a reason for that on ever some articles why can't liberals understand what islam is up to? because they have a long history

because liberalism is defined historically against christianity it tried to end the 18th and 19th century list of other religions is superior to or equal to christianity. that is where the study of religions came from. in doing that they would lift up any religion as better than christianity or equally good to knock christianity off its central pedestal in culture. that is how your new age professor can worship trees and argue that all christians are not send you need to take it in the public square. it's not just that they are against religion but they are against christianity and for any other religion that will help them in their battle to unseat it. >> thank you. [applause] >> let's move across the pacific ocean and talk about china for a bit. greg autry as an entrepreneur

and writer and educator focuses on china. he is a senior economist for the american jobs alliance as an economist with the coalition for a prosperous america. tico wrote the book and movie "death by china" and is has also contributed to another book the coming china wars. he is going to talk today on death by china confronting the dragon. there you are. [applause] >> thank you. i teach at the university of california a small private school in orange california and i will be at usc this fall. i get a chance to look at a slot in people like you but i really get a chance to look at have a lot of young people who don't think i'm a crazy nutcase spending all semester commencing them that their different ways

to think besides the dominant liberal ideology. i know how edge it gets so i would like you ought to stand for just a moment if i could. we are going to do something completely crazy that i never get to do. we are going to say the pledge of allegiance if i would. are you ready? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you. >> it's nice they knew the words. >> how many of you said that when you were in grade school? did you mean it? raise your hand if you meant it. okay. i want you to think about that. the united states actually does matter and i don't agree with 100% of the views of the previous speaker said in they won't agree with 100% everything that i said that the great thing

is we have the amendment that allows us to have a disagreement and have an active discussions our nation can move forward. sometimes julio forward and sometimes we have backwards if we have discussed the. this can't happen with china because despite anything else they might be doing they are not allowing freedom of speech. so i've got a display over the site. how many of you know what 61938 means? you've probably seen the new story about the chinese government and american corporations, right? anybody? 61398 is a single core unit in the people's liberation army in china. this is a division of the chinese military financed by the chinese government. the company put out a really brilliant report that showed that basically 70% of the

sophisticated hacking going on for decades against western corporations corporations primarily in nine states and against against united states government is coming from this building and the blue dog district of shanghai. this is a problem. i recently testified before the foreign affairs committee committee on this in my estimate was this is costing america 400 lien dollars a year. this is costing american 1 million lost jobs or year at a time when we cannot afford that at all. john huntsman the former ambassador to china and -- with yaupon administration did a report. the point of this is it's a lot of money. it's hundreds of millions of dollars. and more than 1 million jobs. this is greater than the impact of 9/11 and direct economic terms. it happens every year and it's done on purpose by the foreign

military. i personally believe that if this building you are looking at on the display was an iranian republican guard unit in tehran that building would be a smoldering pile of rubble before had a chance to testify to congress and speak to about this problem but it's not. that begs the question why. that brings up why are we like best enemies with these folks? so we have this thing called engagement policy that the nixon administration put in. i come from yorba linda california and just down the road from the library. please come visit that we develop this policy called the engage in policy and the goal is we would seek liberalization. i am a fan of mr. lock and i agree nobody is perfect but the point was we would have a government that would become more tolerant and all the things we respect in our cstitution rigs. we would develop a huge export

market in the united states that would create wealth in the united states for there are relationship with china. that we would get geopolitical cooperation from the chinese government that would be useful to the united states abroad and there would be progress on china on human rights. so first of all i want to be clear, do not buy a detail that they're some sort of progress towards democracy and every time it puts forward some new guy that he is the great liberal as if it is going to bring china forward into the age of democracy. it ain't happening. they are still commies after all these years. you have probably seen this chart. the red lines going up or certain number of private enterprises in china and in the lubar's going downward certain number of state-owned enterprises in china. it sounds good, right? ..

>> if you go look at the to the five biggest companies in china every single one is a state owned enterprise. the biggest retailer and the airlines. it is not the vibrant capitalist economy the you thank you see when you go there. if you go to shanghai you

see a building that's as general motors opened the buildings while receiving money from the government now closing plants in detroit that is now they craft so the cars a buick that plant and the partnership that the chinese forces in into is 51% owned by the shanghai automotive corporation, owned by the communist party of china all the money in the technology in the know how. i went to show you something here mandated just last year for all lawyers in china i will fill the sacred mission of socialism of the characteristics assert my loyalty to the motherland and the people to uphold the leadership of the canoes party of trade in the socialist system. that does not sound like

democratic reform to be. but to let me explain something socialism is aware that the for speaker talked about it ty is nationalist and socialist is a fascist government it calls itself communist but essentially are fascists. i could go on about this but this thing here with the trade deficit with china but in a number of different ways we have been doing it 30 years i am a free marketer but you don't do business with criminals and expect to get a good deal.

and that business has been negative for the set of business? you call it a loss. said doesn't seem to make sense for those who want to keep doing this but we will have this super capitalistic economy we need to be aware of this. we keep doing the same strategy in business? this is the free trade period carol -- very tail in this book was written by glenn hubbard the chief economic adviser with the first administration with a

little sidebar to talk about the market system had to make the ipad? one that in factories to shift them to apple. in the market conditions with the globalized market but this is where they have 750,000 people making products for motorola, until, apple that they put your investment dollars into china. and listen to what he has to say why ipad is made where it is. >> audio?

>> [inaudible] >> i will try to read it again. >> >> is that the free market? now. if you do business with the mafia you empower the mafia and crime and they have laws against that for a good reason so frankly advocate we should keep our economic

relations as china is a regime that we are taking a did to jim beattie. '' with the consumer benefits it is true. we do get cheaper things. this is good for 18 months but if i have to pay money to protect the and there -- the environment what do the chinese get? to sign that capacity to feed the military the economist needs to get over their naive view. how many of you have been to china?

it is beautiful. there are some vibrant things going on there. but nonetheless you see these fabulous things even with the whole the big thing to add legitimacy then there is this thing. great. we're all very impressed. is beautiful but how did that happen? i went to borrow something. they did not build a. this is foreign direct investment from other countries in the world including the united states. [laughter] over time guess to built the buildings? as of fell into a decay and

they were fed into the big investment banks and shipped over to china and unless you honestly believe the on this regime is more efficient than the american economy may to except we have funded this. there is a great story from my neck of the woods this company existed los angeles supported by the politicians that would create jobs in the united states so let's listen to what one of their vice president of marketing have to say.

rio earth headquarters downtown las is as were sales marketing engineering finance and we actually assemble a car in california in the bay area and this car one of the u.s. mint we're selling the car in the washington and oregon and across the country as well. we are the fastest-growing employer in a lawsuit angeles county -- loss

angeles county we have the mayor of california i'm sorry the governor of california the assemblyman thank congressman and the politicians and stakeholders from the government affiliate's in the opening of downtown boston angeles. and with the automotive industry. >> this is america in china.

>> 200 and 50 employers pay said of los angeles, california. i am not sure. mir as 65%. [laughter] >> they tell you that on film? it is made in the corporation from the ak-47s including those that were busted. but who would back an organization like that?

the man sitting next to at this summit is the director with the china deal. the devil to you who's in charge of the early. and commerce secretary of the united states by obama and with that national party i could do one we were so stupid geopolitical cooperation with the united states including of the dow we traded $1 billion and of

course, we were to get human rights in with the china commission i went over there is miserable in one of 2 degrees but i was happy to do it to truly appreciate what freedom means. i do respect their right if they choose to to go about the business peaceably. the group of chinese tourists there we're led by the teacher walking behind the capital behind us down the washington law and

monument there resent protests going on so the teacher began to be dead in the chant to overwhelm the speech that the congress and was giving. the arrogance of bringing children to united states of america to teach them what america is about then to use your common use ideology and rhetoric to fight against freedom of religion on the mall of u.s. capital to u.s. congressman to tell americans the we should be running our country. when henry kissinger went to go meet in 1972 so he said perhaps it is the national character erkhart of

americans to be taken in. this is the story behind the engagement policy at china. but the world is not so simple. >> we will go to the back. >> i. a. m. wondering how america justifies how that comes about? >> i have to fit my had done a little bit but it that they will indeed great gobs of money for the nationalists to give freely to both parties with the

ability to exploit the labor market there in the environment with the short-term process which they believe is there shareholders but to undermine the prospect of a country in the nation that can be achieved when it comes to cuba or syria or except china. >> fet say that trade with china is not free trade. >> no. we need to reevaluate we don't have would have to present but reasonable with european partners but when one party is a criminal regime.

>> talk about those how those in the media pretend? >> aa there are some great examples and i will release a understand what is going on but with the hrelease a understand what is going on but with the hierarchy is so into the idea of free trade with the matter how despicable the behavior is to be justified. that you did this with hitler and henry ford and others slammed germany in the 30's they were enamored with them but then to nationalize aimed at united states and their allies.

and then you are not giving free trade to anybody in the long run. >> my name is robin name from texas in my economic development class we talked about western imperialism how the u.s. and great britain impose a western views on how their goods inheritance in that way and if they talk about how that can be beneficial and i am wondering in your opinion is there any time the state run enterprise can be beneficial or can it become privately owned or is it a good thing or is it always lead to the

ending? >> excellent question. i read an editorial a couple years ago on earth day that basically degenerated like ups and fedex and the delivery of junk mail that nobody wants sova to keep the fleet of 300,000 and it can take you to a landfill. there is a role to be a primary customer as they provide a way to step back and there are other cases in

one handed over to the public can develop a global positioning system, and the interstate highway system if anybody is interested in see what you will see corruption behind it. >> it would seem that you touched on one that appeared with the united states government was taken in by the chinese government's statement why do the company's and the government's goal long so willingly? >> because they make money. there was a famous big

grabher in the 30's and asked why he robbed the bank in the misunderstood the question and said that is where the money is. so we have created an environment where by a in order to meet their goals with the investment to their shareholders take a vintage of it because we have the corporate tax rate in the highest and impersonal and federal close at france's levels. we need to reform the rules that force companies but to see the motivations as the technology in the united states where short-term is all the accounts putting in

the late 1960's to say please go anywhere else to do your business. >> when requested -- one more question. >> we're in a really bad debt crisis in california why does the honorable governor. [laughter] why is he giving them to china? especially when working conditions are so bad in china? to back his idea of creating jobs is to create 200 people in the united states of tens of thousands in china to undermine the great american industry to create 200 jobs the only count jobs created but we don't count the jobs

destroyed the famous quote about what is seen and is not seen we don't see the destruction is a continual focus on the short-term job creation instead of long term prosperity down the road. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> jerome course he wrote "the new york times" best-seller that was a major factor in the defeat of john kerry of 2004 in a prolific author not one but two books battered new that he will talk about today. what went wrong inside the g.o.p. debacle and number

two, that's inheritance. the aclu campaign to erase face from the public square. please welcome jerome corsi. [applause] >> i co-authored a lead to a college my great co-author donald i hope he is around i could not have done it without him he is steve avery -- navy veteran -- veteran but today both are equally important messages. i would do start with "bad samaritans" and the subtitle is the aclu relentless campaign to erase faith from the public square.

in the beginning of the book titrate it's the history of the aclu to make it clear this is not the accidental development the founding fathers in writing the first amendment's articulated many times it united states lost its belief in god the founding fathers believed in god with the judeo-christian then we will lose our liberties and i began with this thinking every group changes from from created the declaration of independence the constitution millerites and why would they think this and how is it that america today has allowed the aclu's step-by-step to make us into very secular nation where it is almost a crime to even have the expression of judeo-christian belief that school half the war in the

public square fife and now they are about to move into the church to criminalize christianity i think that is for their own smelly headed. i started to research "bad samaritans" realized the foundation of the aclu was communism thank the original board members or writing books like the soviet america from world war i those who had opposed to go into the military including the founder of the organization himself. the evolution of the aclu is to embrace the socialist radical principles albright communist.

but two things had to be accomplished the judeo-christian god us and -- god had to be destroyed in the fundamental family unit had to be destroyed with these to social structures remaining in place america ahead no chance to become a radical socialist country or a communist country so the aclu decided the first principles going to the 1920's or '30's to support any attack on god wonder the very first efforts of the aclu to argue that in the presentation of evolution in schools of full argument of the scope that was a very famous trial to represent

the aclu and william jennings bryan representing gotti essentially in the th1 dash teaching of creation. the aclu publicized a very radical view of the trial that if you have seen inherit the wind the play or the movie ends up portraying that vision which christians are portrayed as stupid. anybody would believe in the idea of god creating the world remember the famous scene where spencer tracy is a lawyer and browbeating william jennings bryan agreed to -- reduced to tears that never happened in the trial. a and the defense of god was very strong in the trial but the popular image that has come out of that is one that has persisted to demonize christians.

as a follow the history, a couple of major tax going on today i want to emphasize this is a campaign that the left has waged. the primary attack right now is on the whole agenda of marriage being between a man in a woman in.begin with a public relations campaign to change the entire notion of the relationship between two people, homosexual lgbt agenda and that somebody was portrayed that way was terrible and the stigma of but putting homosexuals and a positive light to desensitize the american

population it got to a point where in terms of libertarianism people say it doesn't hurt me if two men or women are married. why should i care? one of those distinctions for a true conservative the moral value the fiber of the nation are the original question judeo principles it is a form of relativism the idea that all these ideas ought to we tested as long as they don't hurt me. the next frontier of the lgbt lobby in the argument to take a public-relations campaign like in a marriage

or pedophilia it is very hard once the barriers are broken now is broken down so people no longer believe in fundamental issues of redemption of course, why can't you experiment with all other forms of sexual activity? we're headed to where we have been before in general and experimented with it and we have seen the results of the ancient rome of christianity coming in i second the attack on the family with the abortion agenda of the feminist agenda to break down the idea of marriage to parents

raising a child with a portion you move into a creative thinking with the experimentation to involve a child is dead democrats exploited but a true conservative floyds say what you talking about? with public welfare? in the idea the reproductive freedom includes the idea of the unborn child its own right to life are that abortion has is consequences working with women who had a portion for the rest of their lives haunted by the child that was not born.

period conservatives need to assert these bayous and bring them forward for white and the book by saying the next challenge once the lgbt agenda achieves there is in fact, a constitutional right to the homosexual marriage or lesbian marriage or whatever is defined as legitimate, then anyone in the church, a pastor who preaches a biblical a judeo-christian interpretation that anything except a marriage between a man and a woman is a sin the pastor will commit a hate crime and then they will define these rights as if they are civil-rights in other words, are we to understand properly discrimination by race is a

crime to voting, housing, jobs, or skin color is the relevant consideration. but to save mail or female or marriage or the idea of raising children or it is not only in the environment that it will ask if it continues operating to provide contraceptive services in the health insurance program in the abortion to violate the fundamental principles of the religion to move to a point where it becomes freedom from religion and freedom of religion in a secular society in which have the aclu would be for the rights of islam and defend muslims in the context it would never

defend the christians on the equal basis. but both of these books are partly dedicated to phyllis also joseph and bill murray who is now a strong christian working to promote christianity throughout the world but with his mother for the cases that got a prayer at and the schools and phil donahue the phyllis' argues decades ago the fundamental issue of why should women have equal rights and they always have special rights? how is it we will eliminate to go to a social agenda?

today in the united states the number of children born out of wedlock is terrifying. the number of teenage pregnancies is terrifying, a broken family, abortion, and if you look at failure, all those that have a child too early in their teenage years not having a husband and wife to raise a child reproducing generations of children that lack education, lack god, lack of values and headed to a future that it is dependent on the state that is engineered the removal of god. thomas jefferson his role of separation with the congregation that never meant to be separation of church and state that the

government cannot come in and interfere with the church. we have come full circle with the aclu in the major -- they have played a major part of that. now what went wrong is part of the election is the continuation of the same theme. you must understand the obama campaign 2008 through 2012 were game changers. the republican party, and it rob via spent three weeks traveling with the mitt romney campaign on the airplane so last day of the campaign mitt romney it came to the back of the plane if he had not even written a concession speech. he was tackled footage. i asked the chief strategist

in he was equally confident. i said why? the whole idea was a good campaign message will be the ground game and the time and i said i am not so sure of that. fed is carl gross thinking of 19501960 that a campaign of the message but what the democrats managed to do and it should not be an estimated i am a professional scientist i have a ph.d. degree in 72 i steadied voting behavior for decades of presidential elections the democrats were a game changer they have highly effective computer scientist and political scientist, communication scientists and psychologists

working for them and they even hired a few physicist in specialist of subatomic movements because of the statistics and the mathematics has mapping of the politics these are people the same silicon valley geniuses, highly funded also with the national security administration to take fast amounts of data and all credit card information every telephone call you ever made every e-mail or every web site you ever looked at to profile you and them micro targeted basis then they run the computer equation so for the political scientist running the above the campaign it wasn't about winning all of

the country as it came down to eight states they came down to cut iacocca county in ohio they pick the city's that have a very bad country if you put the city's back again l.a. as did francisco are very different all across the country it comes down to 50,000 votes that the democrats knew they had to get including the african-american communities and in florida 50,000 additional hispanic votes with techniques you felt they were talking to you personally in the obama campaign playing interest group pl

to make the last point that obama divided a continues to divide the greatest divider in american history the current campaign for instance of trayvon martin with the race baiting and eric holder in morocco bother no way george zimmerman would never be prosecuted under federal equal rights law. the fbi would be happy to testify to show they investigated zimmerman and he is not a racist but the point is this race baiting riles up the african-american supporters bearing three with their support for obama in the rich don't pay their fair

share of dominoes they pay their fair share but if they are riled up the intensified in the support is manipulated that way what you have got is not looking at other stories in the news they have no coverage of the ft. hood shooting than everybody talks about trayvon martin very effective techniques those running the obama campaign i dedicated this book to phyllis for her book in the '60s a choice not the echo their current conservative choices they have no future that is the major theme not

to underestimate the degree to which the obama people have changed fundamentally and forever the nature of presidential politics. thank you very much. [applause] >> it is great to see you again dr. jerome corsi. thank you for coming here today with your to current publications you have written many books from obama as per certificate and from that world you to have the semitism put the administration is creating a downward spiral from our

research and data that you have gathered in with the investigative journalism to use think it is true the you have seen this trend that has been continuing the downward spiral and if so is there hope in 2017? >> i also wrote america for sale that expose the lies of free trade with china. the united states we have to have a true conservative that can explain to people do you really want your future to find buy food stamps? city you're going to college you as to the loans to what

your future defiant by ed job far below what you were trained to you do? if we decide the it can't -- it is too expensive to employ people and for people to be constantly manipulated not realizing the techniques used to get you not to care it is bankrupt after decades of socialism, a detroit is the future of every american city. when i was a child growing up american cities were the great treasure but today they are a wasteland because of welfare in the wasteland because of broken families families, the tragedy going on in the inner-city and around the country that spread to the su where

children learn not raised correctly don't have an education, don't have a future the family is broken from the beginning somebody has to say this is a lie that began with the new deal this is the live government dependence. don't be satisfied as young people to be told that you're not needed. we satisfied that somebody in china can do your job better. the fight for this and if you listen to the allies allies, socialism always comes to help you then in the end it imprisons you. obama is the extension of fdr the very intelligent extension not to be under estimated with some of the best device around political science and computer science so don't think for a minute

the nsa is surveying just terrorist because you have some security saying tea party is the terrorist as soon as they got the reformation the left knows the nsa is not watching silicon valley there watching conservatives every bit as much as the irs targets conservatives they have to stand up and tell the truth darrell ice is doing a remarkable job on this in congress we need to support him and senator cruz was also john mccain mccain, lindsay greer amr corporation rubio is if that is the republican party than conservative student aid the republican party. [applause]

>> ion from highway 61 and detained in los angeles. given the failure of socialism and communism what is the true psychological motivation of today's socialist to recommend this economically? would you be willing to we interviewed for my new movie? >> i would be delighted. thank you. but with socialism is seductive i recommend everyone younker then you read the communist manifesto with the most period documents ever written promises the workers' paradise but also steady stalinist collective don't hesitate to study the millions killed in china will recall in those gina --

china those who are desperate for freedom of the lie is whenever one is telling you the government will help you and unfortunately in the schools the whole indoctrination of the left goes back to last century for for our schools are dominated by leftist thinking in progressives became progressive increasingly because communism and socialism said faded want to be called communist and socialist. the agenda is if distinguishable and the communist party knows it is a with the greatest supporters if you want to prove it to yourself of those papers published in the united states the education you are getting

and have gotten is so heavily laden with the analysis and attacks on republicans in capitalism don't forget it was abraham lincoln in the 14th amendment did he mention abraham lincoln was a republican? what about the civil-rights laws brought forward by dwight eisenhower at a time when the democrats were walking out of the national nominating convention because they were segregationist? the with the democrats in the socialist right the near-death -- the narrative of a strong candidate not mitt romney that was a centrist to begin with do not let the democrats frame them. they ran commercials on mitt romney saying he was a

vulture capitalist with bain capital and put people out of work and to the many in mitt romney had to say that is a lie. he had to explain why in said i will sue anybody who runs the commercial. like phyllis said in the '60s, the conservatives who have strong principals who can articulate those in defend them they don't go for the kgb live if you do not know support obama you are a racist is nonsense and it has to be articulated that way in has to be confronted the republican party has stood for equal rights before the democrats ever became aware of the issue. [applause]

sid back aaron next speaker is named m. stanton evans one of the great longtime leaders of the conservative movement he is better this from the beginning is still keeps going his work as an editor and journalist and television and radio commentator foundling -- funding the national journalism center chairman of the narrative -- american conservative union 71 to 77. a new book out called blacklisted by history the

untold story of senator joe mccarthy and his fight against america's enemies. to turn in a bid to avert is social significance this is a starkly inaccurate. [applause] >> it is very honored to be here with you folks it has been a long road and in many ways but i am glad to be here. i have been around awhile anyway and we have time for q&a?

>> 15 minutes. >> i say that because when you get older too bad things that happen when is that the hearings tourist ago and i forget the other one. [laughter] i want to commend you for being here i don't know if you know, this but this is an all-star team at this conference. these of the very best people in congress without any shadow of a doubt. what you heard i hope will

help you with your own careers after you leave here. i commend you for being here to put in these hours on these serious matters. i teach college in case tell my students there is more to life than keeping up with the kardashian. [laughter] but that is not easy you cannot keep up with their studies if you know, what they are doing. [laughter] i saw kim kardashian. but her father was the attorney for o.j. simpson. [laughter] that is true. and do you follow katie perry? is she still popular?

a couple years ago was outraged that health care in america was not free. i ask my students is her concert three? one dash three bet at that time it was $83 i said that is an outrage why should i not be able to go to the cady berry concert for nothing? i will never go to vicky period concert. [laughter] but it is the point i am a bit of a contrary and in many ways the only time that i text is my wife. [laughter] i tell my wife i know how to do it anyway so there is a

new book called solemn secret agents. it is a period of american history frequently almost always misrepresented in the history books you have read in college and high-school. i tried to look at the mccarthy era, you have heard of senator mccarthy or mccarthyism? how many you have heard anything good? it is not your fault but my generation to not get the death trees out there the new book is other aspects of

the era and from the same goal it may be the war of 1812 but it is important to know the history for a couple of reasons but that is because some of the things that happened the way they're treated today is relevant to recent events in you know, the history to begin with balsa to apply to the present. but back in 1994 the 50th anniversary of d-day and the landing at normandy.

1944. this was commemorated on television at the 50th anniversary 1994. i was watching booktv station in peoria illinois in the lady reading the teleprompter referred to it as world war e. levin. [laughter] that shows they're not teaching history very well also not teaching latin all you think after all of the super bowl you would know something. [laughter] . .