but no one really cares. [laughter] and america used to be like that. we had no influenza until

basically world war ii and then we started having an impact and what has tha the impact on the balance band black's it's idiotic to do a microscopic scrutiny of this or that intervention. you have to look at the whole picture. enrich respect, it's always easy to say we made a mistake over here and we made a mistake over there. churchill in his histor historyn analyzing the war it is illegitimate to criticize people for the benefit of hindsight because they didn't have the hindsight at the time. you have to criticize them based on the information available to them then. enrich respect i don't think we should have gone into iraq. i think the vietnam war was stupid but when i look at the overall picture of american foreign policy to power in the world is either going to be used by us or it's going to be had by

somebody else. if you took america's power right now and we give it up it would go to russia, it would go to china, somebody else would have it and they would use it more heavy handedly and brutally. to take an example the reason that we have the commerce of the world floating around the world across the ocean is because of the united states navy. [applause] there is no other reason. and if you withdraw the united states navy the pirates from other countries and powerful nations would be jostling for the control of the high seas and this wouldn't be a good thing so even from the point of view of the global capitalism, america's power is at the very best a kind of silent custodian of keeping the world safe. when we think of american foreign policy we think of guns, but we don't think of america's greatest foreign-policy which is using our soft power to promote

technological capitalism around the world. the fact of the matter is right now hundreds of millions of people are being lifted out of poverty all over the world. why? because they have adopted the american recipe of globalizati globalization, free trade and technology. that is america's gift to the world. a non- interventionist america a wouldn't be promoting freedom or promoting and would be saying not all men are created equal but all americans come and that's it. if we look at the last 50 years if there wasn't an active america in the world who knows what would have happened in world war ii. we couldn't have been or wouldn't be around to win the cold war and if america hadn't won the cold war it might be choosing between two options. on the one hand and islamic radicalism and on the other hand of soviet communism. american foreign policy at its

best i think is a policy that adopts the doctrine. the reagan doctrine simply is we do not fight for other people's freedom. they fight and we help and this i think as a corrective to the nonintervention on the one hand and you may say preemptive war on the other. both of those are proving to be historically disastrous for america. if we believe in freedom isn't just for ourselves but also for the world we should continue to be what we have been in the last half century a great gift of the world. thank you very much. [applause] >> it's all about the debate this evening. was there any debate about wearing those pants? [laughter] >> they are red, white and blue. >> i see yellow and green and there but i still like them a lot. mr. mccarthy would you like to call your first witness?

i call my first witness mr. grover norquist. [applause] right here in the beautiful -- >> before you sit down what you place your right hand on the taxpayer protection pledge to use where two totals-- do you swear to tell the truth so help you god? >> i do. [applause] >> tell us about your involvement in washington politics and its relationship to the foreign-policy. >> irony taxpayer group and i'm concerned about the state and the taxes and spending and inode as we go through history when we've been involved in interventionist war the taxes go up as a result they don't always come back down again.

the cost of intervention, not self-defense but intervention is one that is paid not just by the people attacked at the time, the taxes go up the income tax put into paid for the first world war was there long after the first world war was over and about spending levels with each of these go up so there is a danger that whenever you have the government involved in the war that taxes and spending that are put in for that specific emergency will stay there for quite some time to read the war is a great big government program. it's obamacare with bullets. and -- >> that's good. >> thank you. [laughter] it's expensive and not to be entered into with great caution in the parts of the foreign-policy that i would critique are those that we have lacked. >> what would you say about how

they affect the civil liberties? i know you've worked with a number of groups ranging from the nra to the aclu. what kind of impact does the war have on our freedom? >> the largest and oldest civil rights organization in the united states the national rifle association. thank you. [applause] >> i'm very concerned. all of us recognize when people get excited about the war they put in all sorts of restraint in terms of civil liberties. you saw these in each won world war i was particularly problematic and you end up with a everything from the draft to tremendous violations of peoples civil liberties. the patriot act was the collection of ideas the clinton administration bureaucrats had in reaction to oklahoma and above republicans looked at it and said no way are we going to give the executive this power. power. then a few years later after september 11, the data. the first conviction was for a

strip bar here in las vegas. when you give people the state power is not limited to the particular use. it can be used to collect your taxes. >> it sounds like you're saying and this sounds like the obama administration might say that you're paranoid if you say the administrations like obama might actually go after critics and usin usepatriot act and other to persecute i don't know, the documentarians that make films that perhaps are critical of the administration. could we imagine this taking place? [applause] >> i'm sure those couldn't happen today but in world war i, they certainly do. [laughter] >> thank you very much.

>> you live in washington, d.c.. would you describe that as a safe city? >> not particularly. >> if there was a -- excellent point. in other words, when there is a danger in a place like washington, d.c. it helps to have a gun doesn't it? if in other words our country is in danger in some ways it helps for us to have some gun. >> if you go to your neighbors house and shoot at him you haven't necessarily made the world safer. but you might install an alarm system in your house. >> why don't we go to world war i and the stupid thing that happened that gave world war ii -- >> a little more to the point. >> the reason we can't just because of asking questions. [laughter] >> it's my turn. the point i am trying to make is that even though it cost you

money to put in a security system, you still do it if you thought that it was a burglary that occurred mac store, wouldn't you? >> i'm in favor of the strong national defense. that's not the same thing as an interventionist foreign policy creating the war for the future. >> let's not forget which ones you think are okay and which ones you think are not okay. we were attacked and were we right to respond? >> if we hadn't jumped into world war i you can start when you want to end the interventi intervention. the occupation in world war i meant a peace treaty that was eventually signed was brutal and was guaranteed -- >> this gave them the fuel to mail i -- militarize. regardless of the mistakes that led to it you are sounding like you are looking at the root causes and there are root causes

but not if you are attacked. what do you do? they didn't just defend itself because they could have by attacking nazi germany or have an action calculated to do just as much damage, but we love old japan and a job and the atomic bomb. were you right to do those things? >> we went all out. >> i'm not sure that fireballing certain cities ended the war though i do think that dropping the nuclear bomb was better than starving everybody in japan. that would have been all out and i think that would have been a mistake. >> so it was okay. let's talk about the cold war. they fostered cold war for 40 years and even though it was a cold wathecold war it involved e militarization and military spending and the strategic missile defense, the u.s. supporting all kind of actions in afghanistan and somalia and

also supporting afghanistan. you supported all of those things if i recall. i support the soviet union because they were threatening the united states. the united states foreign-policy is a broad subject than just one conflict in the decision to invade and involve ourselves in the spanish-american war and the decision to involve ourselves in world war i and to occupied iraq and afghanistan for a decade are ones that lay groundwork for future problems rather than solve problems and cost a lot of lives we have seen the civil liberties as a result and these are very serious problems. should we have knocked out in afghanistan in a row eradicated the regime and are those the correct actions to do? >> it doesn't bother me that we

were not at the company and regime it is a decision to stick around for ten years and try to rerun those countries and organize them and turn them into kansas city after the spanish-american war that did not -- we are significantly weak in the world today than before 9/11 because of the decisions that we made it off because the decisions the enemy is made but because of the decisions we made economically and in the foreign-policy we strengthened the regimes around the globe and it was expensive. >> i'm trying to get a sense of if you are criticizing the actions of the particular foreign-policy comedy action in afghanistan or obama somewhere else or if you are actually criticizing the idea of america being active in the world using to be saying it would be a good idea to go there to knock on the taliban and get out. do you support the? >> that would be a big

improvement over what we did. >> urls against an interventionist foreign policy that carried out the bush and obama style. >> looking at what happened yes there is an intervention that we try to go in and run other countries for them and spending a lot of lives and time and money and our own civil liberties and sacrifice as wilson did in world war i and as we tried to do in a ten year occupation of the country's got bought us idot us in a worse por the occupation before and the people that were pointing this out at the time this is something many people pointed out because it is exactly what was going to happen when we left and wherever we left whether it was five years or 20 years. >> if you look at american foreign-policy let's say in the last 50 years from 1945 to now

-- >> leaving world war i out. >> i understand you have a beef with world war i and i might agree with you with that one. >> it's the prototype of what to avoid. the big mistake you don't leave out. they only made one mistake. >> on the balance if you had to give a yes or no answer has america and its foreign-policy and by designing both its hard power and soft power on the balance has it been good for the world yes or no? >> i'm asking for a yes or no. however i putting words in his mouth? >> but those are the words you are requiring him to say. [laughter] >> let's have a definition here. >> we have to wrap it up soon. i'm not going to overrule the objective that -- >> i think it's self it is very

telling. >> very good. okay. >> you may step down. i call my next witness. >> that is a fine idea. let's bring him out to the stage. going to do a paternity test just like maury. >> calling douglas casey took a stand. stand. there he is. let's hear it ladies and gentlemen. let's get this party we started. in the copy of the war what is it good for? do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you? >> i always tell the truth. >> have a seat.

did you have some t-shirts made? is your name, rank and serial number? >> i don't believe in those things. over the years, i've come to despise the military and everything it stands for. i view them as a heavily armed version of the post office. [laughter] >> tell us a little bit about your world experience. i know that you live in several countries and traveled extensively. what is your impression of how they are changing the world right no now it and is in fact n his friends are making their enemy? >> it is a complete disaster anywhere that the u.s. government sticks its nose and its tentacles, it destroys things. it used to be that people around the world loved the idea of america. it represented freedom and a

high standard of living. it represented individual liberty and the rights to do what you want and go where you want. but now americans with soldiers and the combat soldiers have one size or degree or another in over 100 countries around the world where we are despised. it's not that i approve of world war i. it was unnecessary even for america to get into that. eventually i don't even call it america anymore. america is an idea, and an excellent idea. but unfortunately it's been replaced by the united states which is just another degraded nationstate 200 of which are covering the world like a skin disease at this point. [applause] >> don't hold back. what do you really think?

[laughter] >> the u.s. government and around the world is the enemy not only of the people killing around the world of the average american because of all of the enemies that it is making around the world. it serves no useful purpose at all. >> you have extensive experience with investments. investment. do you find the foreign-policy is making a sensible investment for people around the world, what is the affect? >> that's the big thing. it's not just the people that are built into the material around the country it is bankrupting the u.s.. i expect to those 20 some aircraft carriers, told big ones and another dozen little ones that we have some of them will end up at the dock like the soviet navy did order argentina

did recently actually it tilted 45 degrees at the dock. why is that? because it takes tremendous economic power to prevent that kind of force and it's going to bankrupt the country so in fact i will go so far as to say if it hadn't been for the united states stupid counterproductive military adventures we were to be more advanced over china and we are in the agenda. we would already be colonizing the planet if we had into the story all of this l. we destroyed a number of ways even with these charitable things where we give food to starving countries. maybe that keeps some from starving today that even when they do, it's supposedly beneficial things like that. it destroys the local market. farmers are bankrupted the country and now they are on

permanent welfare so even the so-called good things that we do, forget about the bad things that we do that are destructive and more to the people here. >> it sounds like a moral and a capital bankruptcy. are we seeing the american character changed by this? >> that is actually the worst part of the morality of this is corrupted in the american character at this point. and this is actually the most fundamental argument against this adventure is.

even the germans have gotten under the site because they are on our side. >> they certainly did against brazil, right? all of these that are justified on the moral reasons have destroyed the moral character of the united states and the american people. so, it's a horrible situation and it's getting worse because as the economy gets down this next time as many of you know we aryou're just the ifp gigantic economic hurricane that we entered in 2008 and 2009 and as we go into the trail in the next few years, the government is going to be very bad, much worse than we had in 28 and 2009 the government never blames itself for all of the things that brought this on but it's going to look to blame other entities.

it's going to blame those horrible arabs for cutting the price of oil at $110 per barrel. it's going to blame those horrible chinese for filling wal-mart full of affordable goods. it's going to blame anybody and everybody and so they help in the state you can count on finding the foreign enemy to unite the people and distract the attention from themselves. >> i think we have to wrap up. >> i think we had some questions for you. >> mr. casey, let me ask you this do you agree that the successful life that you've lived as an object or is only possible because it has occurred in america? >> know that is a ridiculous statement.

in the populist arguments that set up strawmen no. you can't do it in the countries like afghanistan but the fact is that since america's peak in the late 50s, the greatest economic progress and the greatest amount of wealth that has been created in places and now africa is even booming around the united states so yes i could have done it anywhere in the world to answer your question. >> but noting something that you said whic which which i'm not pg you couldn't do it in the unfree countries. do you realize the reason -- >> you can bet i'd choose to do it honestly. >> do you agree that the united states is and remains a free country in part because of those lower middle class kids who sign up for the military and protect us from being invaded by the

hostile powers and the security and freedom of the united states is made possible by the people that you despise do you think you are protecting the freedom? >> you are absolute being correct. first speaking to the military -- there are nice people in the military bumilitary but the face matter is most of the u.s. military is made up of refugees from the ghettos and the trailer parks. how about if we replace them with other middle-class white guys like you? [laughter] i don't believe -- i think the biggest danger to the united states and the world is the u.s. military today. it's a parasite sucking the blood of the country and i would say at least 95% of it should be abolished and if you are like

those kids in the military and i have nothing against them personally they should come back here and find productive labor. >> it easy to see these in the abstract. the policemen and the city are also the domestic equivalent of the military because they are supposed to keep us safe to read would you be in favor of abolishing the police in the united states? >> i believe in abolishing the state and a state police. the police in the country are becoming militarized. most o of that of them today ars trained in the military technique. the answer to the question is anything but the police do in the united states could be done better and cheaper and more by the private security. [applause] why don't you tell us for private security response to

9/11. >> that is a good question. we wouldn't have had 9/11 if they hadn't been sticking its nose into the foreign countries. [applause] >> it was a response to something we started and let me explain why. osama bin laden said several times there are three things that he wants the u.s. to stop supporting the local dictators to get the troops out of their countries. to stop interfering in their affairs. we didn't and so thi answer thia subtle way a criminal logical response and i would handle it as a criminal act. a giant large criminal act but not a military act. >> even the criminal act requires the leaf. how would they go after bin laden?

to make what they did in afghanistan looking to borrow the money from the chinese in order to attack afghanistan i would say that if osama bin laden was responsible for that he could have been tracked down by mercenaries who would do it for the money and peace issues have been tried. the russians have about 16,000 the chinese have three to 400 other countries have nuclear weapons. if we abolish the state would we abolish around nuclear arsenal? can i suggest doing that, yes. >> so they would have 1500, the chinese would have 300. >> let me say something that may shock you. at that point there will be no reason for any of them to attack this geographical area called

the united states than there would be for them to attack the geographical area called new zealand or canada. because we would be just as powerless and defenseless and therefore we would be just as vulnerable. >> i am an advocate of every american having weapons so the chinese army landed on the coast of california in the line of defense that would be the chinese general -- what the chinese general ask somebody take me to your leader and i'm sure they would take them into the chinese -- and listen people don't invade countries anymore. this isn't the days of the roman empire where you invade a country and steal by women and is yield the cattle. that isn't th is the nature of h anymore.

>> they are in a kind of technological enlightenment where they no longer make sense to anybody in the world. >> if they started confiscating property and hurting people, in 30 days they would have opened up the mcdonald's franchises and the other half would disappear because the citizens would seek them out at night. >> thank you. >> very good. you can step down. what did you think about that? who won that exchange? [applause] was if mr. casey? [applause] it's very interesting. i got a rise out of you all when i spoke badly against the u.s. military. you all have this thing where it's your soldiers defending you but at this point there are a

hired mercenary army. >> i get my kicks above the line. the du have any further witnesses? >> i do not. the prosecution rests. >> that means you can call it your first witness. >> i call brigadier general michael meeks. [applause] >> general, we have a choice. would you like to swear and take your oath on this 400 page monstrosity that is the patriot act or this 30 page beauty that is the constitution of the united states? ..

afghanistan now my son is serving one dash serving outside canada our outside afghanistan today. [applause] >> anything about the post office? [laughter] >> no.

>> you heard casey talk about a country that would dismantle the state that would have little or no military to rely on the fact the chinese don't actually believe bin conquest anymore not but that makes any sense. how accurate is this a description of human nature or the actual world we live in today? >> clearly it is not anyone with the good sense of reality. [laughter] a.m. to in fact, look at the influence america has had especially since world war ii working in korea, japan, to rebuild those nations to rebound back to wes.

>> to celebrate the fact south korea is a capitalistic example verses' north korea doesn't that go to secure the freedom of south korea? >> in fact, it would not have happened talk about the exaggerations of mr. norquist but having troops there with ambassadors of the united states and three people everywhere will get the contrast it is a great example of what america can do. his good to use all the instruments of foreign policy. [applause] >> that $200 billion deficit

for tax cuts but a strong increase of military spending contributed to the end of the cold war. was that a worthwhile investment and is the world better off including us because there is no soviet union? >> cautioned someone is lobbying a softball. [laughter] >> of his slate is a positive move that what is interesting since then in contrast to what grover request -- norquist said, in fact, we are about to have been two years the smallest military since 1939 with a country of the population three times the size of the amount of spending on the military and ronald reagan

increase that from about 4 percent up at 6%. >> let me take a risk as an attorney with a more problematic scenario with retrospect what if bush had not invaded or not into nation-building but said we don't know who they are but they have come with the middle east so we will grab a really bad guy to beat his head repeatedly into the ground then we will leave. if we had done that not making this investment but to send a message there is a new sheriff in town isn't that a better way? >> probably would have if you look with colin powell

and secretary of the state. >> but what would have had been at that point now the war is breaking up because we had abandoned our relationship with iraq. man with a chinese and europe and leading to a conflagration. >> with the competing attorney on the balance of good force in the world? >> yes. >> thank joe. >> your witness. >> dinesh said the vietnam

war was ill promised and should not have been fought? >> on balance i would have done why president eisenhower did. >> but you are in fact, in favor of what we have today? digest. the mission of i iraq was to oppose saddam hussein then provide the opportunity to roll back the forces of civil war and provide the opportunity for iraq to govern itself but what most of the press does not cover because they cover brigade spears something that is more important is that iraq freed 30 million people that

voted three times and prime minister maliki is actually a second place candidate but those that had never voted before that started the way toward democracy that we should have supported more. >> mission accomplished? >> no. the initiative and moved forward moving forward with that accomplishment how does that make people more prosperous and free and those? >> another big one dash dictator with those weapons of mass destruction opposing

saddam hussein was the indication the influence the united states has in the world with the coalition and we put together with 39 nations to fight alongside us in that kind of global leadership plays a significant impact with trade and foreign policy. >> how has that enhance the liberties? >> let's get the advent of global trade and applicable economic opportunities that may be mr. "forbes" could expand on in cradling. >> you don't think there is global trade without the iraq war? >>. >> you don't think we have substantial influence before the hour iraq or? >> a think we did but again

like vietnam's with that 20/20 hindsight we did not have weapons of mass destruction and saddam thought that he did and probably would not had intervened with 20/20 hindsight but they don't have that ability to undo those positions they've made. >> a you unaware of those who critique the iraq war before it began that nobody had foresight that what could go wrong? >> there were all lot including those in the of military that debated this significantly general's sincerity testified to congress. [laughter] senate in q general. [applause] he may step down. >> would you like to call one more witness to the stand? >> mr. steve forbes.

[cheers and applause] >> i have the copy of a soon-to-be best selling book titled money. would you please place your right hand on it? day you swear to tell the truth the whole truth n nothing but the truth so help you god? >> it is on the money. [laughter] >> we don't need to ask about your background because everybody knows what it is. you are a capitalist tool a publisher of a great magazine an investor and a global traveler, would you agree in the last couple of decades the world has seen an explosion of technological capitalism? >> what the world needs is

with the explosion of capitalism harmed by the crisis of 2008 / 2009 but no question that we went to one of the most extraordinary periods in history never before had so many people as has happened in that quarter of this century and the world that america helped to shape make that possible and not until the 1990's that we achieve with flows of capital in terms of trade this portion of the coal economy before world war i. only in the '90s did we get back to what we had before 1914. >> with a specific case of india prior to the of liberalization and capitalist opening in india it seems a look to gain mainly at the loss of pakistan or china of ongoing

military rivalry and both countries were looking to gain by taking from the other. would you agree united states has played an important role to prevent that from taking place enabling the capitalist revolution distinct to india? >> united states could not prevent three wars between india and pakistan and i think we botched what happened in 1970 when the old pakistan broke up that bangladesh created but united states is winning the cold war making it possible to get over the soviet union and to focus internally the 1991 reform to enable india to go into a stag nation to becoming a high-tech power in the world spin if there

are two ways to get rich one is from the wealth creation or taking from someone else in america have one minute left to think the chinese and the russians even though they have benefited from wealth creation have given up conquest? >> sadly in the case of russia it does not appear to be the case. the economy then started to show promise in the early 2000's as john mccain pointed out is a gas station dependent solely on oil revenues. the tousing grabbing territory makes themselves a great power. this was a great mistake germany made in 1914 that was then the dominant power in europe would it was fearful about france having a military or russia having a military and they thought

of war would solve their problems are as we know if germany had let things flow it would be the dominant power in europe and to not need to rival the brits or add 50% to the army and of power would have come from the power of its economy but the elements of china and russia still have the old feeling of rome to get rich to have to conquer. >> on the balance has america been a force for good or bad in the world? finigan no question. a powerful force for good. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> mr. forms he's -- forsythe said the wars were dubious exercise is. >> you can always look back 2.0 mistakes takes the vietnam war another way to

look at vietnam is there was a terrible loss of the cold war and a huge battle lost just as we lost battles and rolled war two but we won in history the sad fact is introspect we can say we should not have done that but are you trying to win the big one end with the cold war democracies don't have that cystic to wit that does dictatorship's having and we had that's especially with the aftermath of vietnam and we won the cold war and ronald reagan had a vision to see you don't have to have a stalemate the you can get a victory and we got the victory. [applause] >> i am interested to hear that you have a distinction between ronald reagan for policy or johnson or bush or

a militaristic president? >> in terms of the effective foreign policy ronald reagan because he was seen as strong put missiles in germany which prevented the soviets from intimidating and the first time a communist regime was overthrown from the outside and even though it was a small operation is sent a signal to the overall the u.s. was becoming a major player again. but by the time the first iraq war came along, it was completely transformed hand in terms of lyndon johnson and look at vietnam and books were written about this, if that was treated as

the insurgency with a handful of people instead of trying to recreate the battlefields of vietnam there was a different result even in 1972 the vietnamese took a major offensive they beat them. we threw that a way. you could say we should not have been there in the first place but we then threw it away. >> you have one minute with this witness. >> do you not think we did see the counter insurgency strategy is in iraq that failed to produce the results we wanted to see? >> when we finally got our act together with the surgeon at the factory had 20,000 more men is we thought the way that whether we should have been there but that counter insurgency worked.

we beat the guerrillas that went against everyone's expectation with what the u.s. army did to work with the locals and it worked that is why the militia came on our side. but again we threw it away. >> thank you very much mr. "forbes." [applause] let's hear it for all of government says. a thoughtful discussion. ladies and gentlemen, of the jury you have heard the expert witness testimony now it is up to you to decide the guilt or innocence of mr. -- mr. d'souza and supporters of american foreign policy of the preponderance of evidence

supports the prosecution that american foreign policy has failed to achieve its goal to create stable democracies around the world and it has resulted into a failed awards -- wore a santa a failed view of america across the world it does not require a unanimous decision is that clearer? are there any questions? >> we're totally running out of time. so some sort of a decision.

>> how are you doing? are you good? are you having fun? >> they have stolen your pen and your freedom. [laughter] >> anyone want to play heads up seven-up? [laughter] also a massive game of duck dash goose.

>> who has won the most money so far? raise your hand. you could take me to dinner. we could do that shopping thing like in indecent proposal. except the sec's. that would not happen but i love the address. [laughter] >> do we have a decision? >> your honor? >> members of the jury had reached the verdict? >> we have. >> please rise and face the jury. [laughter] >> [applause] madam foreperson please read your verdict. >> we the members of the jury find the defendant not guilty.

>> you are totally undefeated. you were like the may weather of freedom fest. >> mr. d'souza un your friends have ben found not guilty steel can enjoy your urbanite and las vegas known as an city may enjoy life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness in many forms. congratulations. >> they give for attending. >> jury you are excused.

>> hubbell was the most important business and late 19th century and on to most of the real-estate in the industrial district south of downtown and developed a lot of buildings and the downtown area of the most important tea set up a trust for all of his properties and that trust said most of the properties could not be sold but those had to be reinvested into des moines so that kept the house hubbell money and the family in des moines so now five generations are closely tied to the city. came to des moines 1855 as a

youngster dad can now to speculate on land and after dad bought land and sold it hubbell said he wanted to stay and started working with the land office and from that beginning the 16 rule became the wealthiest man in i was through land developments, utilities developments, railroads and insurance companies. it was an accident he got into land development if he can now with his father he did not know:he would be in iowa and he just wanted to get a job the only place was the federal land office and he loved the excitement and he's out there was real potential to make money. he was from connecticut and did not see a future in connecticut when his dad said he wants to go back home f. m. hubbell said i want to stay and his dad

gave him a $5 gold pc and f. m. hubbell stayed in des moines. he left one year after he came so he wintus to city to work in the office there then branched out on his own. he wanted to get back to des moines but the civil war had started and a partner of korn of the law firm's he wanted to work for went to the regiment and he was offered the position of sell-off form. cassidy left that it became polka and hubbell he was criticized for not volunteering for the symbol for mandated this and some were accused of being anti-war or copperheads. i don't believe f. m. hubbell was but he was just not interested in fighting and the like rockefeller, a

lot of businessmen did not join the fight in the civil war and made a lot of money and f. m. hubbell was one of those. he made lot of money buying distressed properties are in the financial crisis of 1857 you can make a lot of money if he spent all available cash on land at foreclosure properties in sales people thought that was the bottom trilling strategy but he went almost broke buying up these properties but when the economy turned around he made a lot of money. after real-estate he was working for the of polk and hubble law firm. but they also realized as the two partners there were a lot of opportunities in railroad development and des moines did not have great

connections and they began to sponsor railroads that connected to the bigger ones running through iowa. they also considered a life insurance as the great way to make money to take money in up 4% and landed out that 10 percent that was hubbell's ideas to put together a group of investors has started equitable life the first life insurance company west of the mississippi river. insurance was one of the biggest industries of des moines -- jeb des moines is started with equitable than others opportunity and insurance companies began to move into des moines. bankers life started 80 and 69 that became principal then other insurance companies followed. . .

up next on booktv, "after