was interesting. you have an entirely female organization raising their own funds. so of the latinos continued to support the union when lincoln had to run for reelection, and it was not clear that he was going to win. if you remember, and august of 1864 he thought he was not going to win because things are still going horribly. he actually wrote out his letter of resignation. he was going to arrange the work differently. he was feeling horrible. well, latinos supported lincoln, so they campaigned here in california very vociferously for lincoln, and i have a campaign announcement in spanish. and it is illustrated with the mexican and the united states flag because their flags of freedom and democracy. in part thanks to latinos

lincoln won. i think it was more than just the latino vote, but it certainly helped. and finally, the civil war was over and the confederacy surrendered. two years later. >> million was captured and sentenced for treason, tried, and executed. finally latinos can breathe a sigh of relief that they and their children were going to grow up under freedom and democracy not slavery to white supremacy and it illegal government. and that has the beginning of the annual commemoration of cinco de mayo. >> host: you opened your book talking about being in guadalajara, mexico and looking forward to be cinco de mayo celebration. >> one here in california. i was an undergraduate at berkeley in the 60's, and we began doing the cinco de mayo celebration. the music concert at the greek theater. we did not know this history. we didn't.

i just happened to be there on a cinco de mayo, which is unusual because usually ago in the summer. i thought, i'm going to see the biggest cinco de mayo ever. well, i get a really good seat and waited and waited and waited. i said to my cousin, where was your cinco de mayo? what cinco de mayo? don't you have a parade? no. you don't? and i began to discover how different cinco de mayo is commemorated in the two countries. now i understand it is part of the civil war which impacted latinos tremendously here. the confederacy had one basically there was no future for latinos. they bet the ranch. it looked shaky. cinco de mayo became for latinos kind of the way the alamo is for texans.

always remember, never forget. so impacted the latino community that 152 years later we're still continuing to celebrate. >> host: it has evolved into more of a festival, right? speech to some people think of it as simply white st. patrick's day or something. just another ethnic festival, but what i discovered as i was doing research for this book, it's about constitutional issues, freedom versus slavery, white supremacy verses racial equality, democracy verses elitist government and, of course, always the issue of rights for women. these are in many ways very latin american constitutional values that were present in california because it had been part of mexico and latin america, and these values then became part of the united states. >> host: we are talking to you about history, american

history, but you teach medicine. >> guest: yes. i am not -- i did not get a ph.d. in history. i am a researcher. i wrote my very first book almost 40 years ago. published by stanford university press. i am a methodologies. actually, i was interested in studying a particular health phenomenon called the latino epidemiological paradox. now, the latinos in the united states can be freely described as having one symptom, less education, less access to care. and yet latinos compared to everybody else, 35 percent fewer heart attacks. 42 percent fewer cancer, 25 percent fewer strokes. close to 60 percent fewer deaths due to chronic respiratory. in fact, for all causes of

death latinos have about a 6% lower death rate and live three to five years longer, lower infant mortality, do drugs less. yet because of the education you think it would be reversed. that is what i study. that is my day job. i got curious as to how far back i could trace this, and i wanted to go back to the gold rush and the civil war era. they did not have good public records. how do i find out who was born, who married, and who died? spanish-language newspapers. the same thing today. you can read in english language newspaper. you would have no idea that los angeles is half latino. but he read a spanish-language paper and it is like reading about a parallel universe. the same thing is going on in the gold rush. i put together i think the world's best collection of

19th century spanish papers just a look. a baby girl who got married who died, an obituary. so i was just pulling this data out, but as i pulled them out in the columns around them, the fugitive slave act and as a fugitive slave in california. the dread scott decision. john bell marches on harpers ferry, the first battle of bull run, in mexico. it fell into my lap. was not looking for this material. but after a while there was just so much material i said i have to share this story, so i did. >> host: and we have been talking with ucla professor david hayes-bautista about "el cinco de mayo". you are watching book tv on c-span2. thank you, professor. >> guest: my pleasure. >> is there a nonfiction author were booked you would like to see featured on book

tv? send us an e-mail. tweet us, or post on our wall. >> next on book tv in a collection of essays david horowitz recounts his transition from a proponent of the political left to one of its critics. this is about an hour. >> thank you, everybody. a democratic strategist once wisely said, everybody has a game plan and tell you punch them in the mouth. the left has obviously taken that strategy to heart and perfected it while the right has taken so many shots to the mouth we have been left punch drunk and on the ropes maybe not for much longer. the new book by david horowitz, "take no prisoners: the battle plan for defeating the left" is the manual for conservative

victory, the manual for punching the left in the mouth, which i think is an appropriate metaphor for an organization, the freedom center, which david himself has described as not a think tank but a battle tank. this is the right but get the right time and the right man. i will not go on too long because there cannot be anyone here who is not aware of and grateful for the epic contributions that david horowitz has made for our side, the most notable apostate and most relentless nemesis. the lightning rod for their hatred and politics. the cost to him has been extraordinarily high, but his contributions have been eight continued in valuable asset among those of us who believe in the unfashionable values of freedom in america and exceptional as an. in addition to his activism through the freedom center and spearheading work to get college campuses fair and balanced, david has been a prolific and important writer. i will name just a few

standouts that he has written, which you must read a radical son, destructive generation, left allusions, but art of political war, and holy alliance, the black book of the american left. now "take no prisoners", including the work that mike mentioned. such a slacker. please try to -- could you get a little busier? we need you. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome a man who has been good to me personally, whose game plan while potts the left and the mouth, a one-man battle tank in defense of freedom, david horowitz. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, marc.

have today to celebrity friends, steven bauer who was a great actor. you may have -- [applause] you may remember him from star face, but any of you who are not should start catching up. he plays donovan security guy. and a man who i think is the funniest man in hollywood, the brains behind the naked gun series, airplanes series, scary movie, david zucker. [applause] c-span this year. and i would like to begin with a tribute to brian lamb , the republican who has run this gentle -- channel

for 35 years and made it the fairest and most balanced cable network. i have a special reason to appreciate this network and brands achievements. for 30 years i have been blacklisted by the mainstream media for my political views. as far as they are concerned, my books do not exist. the black list begins with the new york times, which sets the standard for all the other reviews. thirty years ago the times reviewed books that peter and i wrote on the front page of its sunday book review calling him irresistible epics, but that is when peter and i were leftist. in 1985 we wrote an article to the "washington post" called lefty's for reagan, and the times retaliated by relegating us to the back pages. i became a more and more prominent conservative voice and the times maybe an

unperson and other papers followed suit. the last time the new york review of books reviewed a book of mine was in 1985 just before peter and i had the bad judgment to reveal that we had voted for reagan so i take particular pleasure in thinking brian lamb and the c-span executives for keeping alive the fading american principles of tolerance and pluralism, which the times and so-called liberals have traduced and for giving me this opportunity to tell people about my book. today is the 13th anniversary of the most devastating attack on the american homeland says the british burned the white house and 1812. the 9/11 atrocity was more than an attack, it was a declaration of war against america, against israel, against the west generally and against every modern

value associated with tolerance and freedom. president bush rose to this occasion as they were the commander in chief, unlike the present occupant of the white house. most importantly, he recognized the fact that this was a war declared on us, it was a war whose leader has said it was the duty of every muslim to kill every american, every jew, every question, and every other infidelity could lay his hands on. bush responded to this barbarian threat by declaring a war on terror, a war on the terrorists who attacked us, not just al qaeda, but on every terrorist force with a global reach. unfortunately, the war on terror that bush declared has been a war that democrats have opposed for a decade and more. the precise moment they openly effected was july july 2003 when the democratic leaders turned

against the war which they had authorized only months before. since that time democrats have been so determined that the united states should not fight a war on terror. when the democrat brock obama became president he eliminated the term war on terror from the u.s. government vocabulary entirely and replaced it with overseas contingency operations, which describes exactly nothing. obama did worse, much worse. he set out to degrade america's military forces and appease america's islamist enemies, bowling and scraping before islamists who were sworn to kill americans when they could. obama supported and financed the muslim brotherhood, which is the fountainhead of islamic terror. to this evil organization gaining control of egypt's government he gave over

1 billion american dollars and 16 fighter bombers which would have been used against israel had not the brother had been overthrown shortly afterward and outlawed. [applause] for over a decade democrats have insisted that the work conducted by his like terrorist against america's be treated as individual criminal acts to be prosecuted in civilian courts of law where the terrorists will be protected by rights of americans. these would be used by the terrorists to tie our hands allowing them to squander millions of taxpayer dollars pretending to be innocent. the war we iran is a war between barbarism and civilization, and democrats have done everything that they could to sabotage our side of the war and disarm us in the face of this terror. when i hear a republican say something like this i will

begin to believe that republicans might win the 2016 election. since 1945 republicans have never won a national -- the popular vote in a national election. national security was the primary issue of the campaign. in 2008 and 2012 national security was almost absent from the republican campaign plan. they were afraid to mention obama's assault on the nation's security because the democrats would attack them has warmongers. in the third debate on foreign policy romney actually hugged the leader of america's global retreat and pretended to endorse his policies. how did this happen? it happened because republicans gave up the national security when they failed to defend america's intervention and worse they

helped to hold democrats responsible for betraying the war which was vital to the war on terror. bush was right to go and in march 2003. [applause] he was right to remove saddam hussein, one of the monsters of the 20th century who was supporting terrorism and determined to acquire a chemical, biological, and unclear weapons. the difficulty is content to the bill clinton, john kerry, and held forth all supported the level by force , as did the majority of democrats in the senate. on like obama's interventions in libya and elsewhere bushes were to remove saddam was authorized not only by congress but by a u.n. security council ultimatum. u.n. forces entered iraq in

march 2003 and toppled saddam in april. three months later the democratic party with the nation's media in their pocket turned savagely against bush calling him a liar and a trader and condemned the mission and iraq as illegal, immoral, and unnecessary. that is out gore. these attacks went on for the next five years until a democrat entered the white house promising to throw in the towel and withdraw from the field of battle. what happened to change the democrats from supporting the war in iraq? no republican or conservative seems to remember this. and in asia that cripples the effort to expose the dangerous policies the democrats have pursued. i will tell you. absolutely nothing to place. america's conduct of the war

. absolutely nothing. what happened to change the democrats from supporters of america's war against the terrorists, the saboteur of that or was this. in the spring of 2003 as american troops entered iraq , a democratic presidential primary was in progress and an anti-war radicalism from the 60's named howard dean was about to run away with the nomination leaving all the other candidates, including john kerry far behind. it was this fact that cost carry he subsequently won the nomination to repudiate his support for the war, stabbed his country in the back and pitch rain the young men and women he had voted to send into harm's way. of course, no republicans used words like this to

describe what he did. in july 2003 the whole democratic party fell into line with carries patrol and became accusing bush of lying to get the country into war. they said it was to benefit is oil cronies and dick cheney's former company, halliburton. they said the war was immoral, illegal, and unnecessary. bushline and people died. and this began a sabotage of america's efforts to destroy the islamic terrorists in iraq and the middle east that lasted for the next five years. what was the republican response to this treason? silences. republicans were too scared or was it too polite to to fight back. after the damage was done karl rove admitted that this

was his greatest mistake, the damage was done. the centerpiece of the democratic attack on bush was that he lied to them about the intelligence concerning the state of saddam's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. he lied about the intelligence to get their support for the unnecessary war. in fact, bush could not have lied they sat on the intelligence committees and have access to every piece of intelligence. it was the democrats who were lying because they could not admit that they have turned their backs on a war that they supported that they have betrayed their country in order to win a primary election and an attempt to win a national election. it was unnecessary because there were no weapons of mass destruction and iraq. but it was about some of

determination to acquire these weapons in its violation of 17 u.n. security council resolutions designed to prevent them from doing that. and of course, there were weapons of mass destruction. the democrats but the whole country and an aisle. even when the evidence smacks them in the face they still can see it. a month or so ago the big news story was that isis had stumbled onto a chemical weapon storage plant that had been built by saddam hussein. the news anchor said that the chemical weapons were dangerous and hands of isis and left it at that. but they failed to say that the existence of this storage facility show that there were weapons of mass destruction and that the democrats had lied in order to sabotage america's war against saddam and the terrorists and iraq.

even making kelly managed in the same program to feature the chemical weapons story and then in a later segment to accuse dick cheney of being wrong about iraq because there were no weapons of mass destruction. dick cheney was right. there were. this colossal misreading of the war in iraq that had ominous consequences. if you want to understand why terrorists greuel iraq today at least it is the democrats defection from the war in iraq and their tenure campaign to force america's retreat from the war on terror. consider the consequences of the democrats campaign because they divided the country and said half of it against the war. american could not follow in to syria. where do you think a side

got those chemical weapons? [applause] because of america's impotence syria became a culture of terrorism and iran stayed unpunished for itt's that killed and maimed the majority of american casualties. perhaps we could have won the war on terror than when it was manageable if the democrats had been on our side. what the republicans silence did in the face of the democrats the trial was to allow the democrats to turn that the trail into a patriotic act. to stigmatize republican support for unnecessary war and i'm patriotic war maundering. this is why republicans in the last two elections were unwilling to stand for the country and why they lost the elections. they were afraid of being

portrayed as reckless to this day no republican has the spine to call for boots on the ground in iraq, which is obviously necessary if isis is to be defeated. that is a direct consequence of the false picture of why the war in iraq went back. this is the price you pay if you lose the political battle and throw in the towel before you begin. republicans will not win the presidential election in 2016 unless they hold democrats accountable for their years of degrading america's military and leading america's retreat. on a principled and unscrupulous as they are, the democrats will now try to position themselves at the head of the war against isis. republicans should not let them get away with this the democrats' determination to turn their back of the war,

we would still have a massive military base in iraq with 20,000 troops in country. republicans should make this a political mantra and throw it in the democrats face is every chance they get. [applause] it was actually mike tyson who said, everybody has a game plan and tell you punch them in the mouth. democrats have a massive punch in the mouth for republicans. every election, every time they open their mouth democrats are accusing republicans as racist, sexist, homophobic, enemies of the poor, selfish, and fun caring. that is a moral indictment, and it throws those accused

of this off of their game plan and they wind up defending themselves against charges you really cannot defend yourself against, certainly not in the political arena where you have nine seconds to respond . what is the republicans punch in the mouth of the democrats? there is none. republicans are busy telling positive stories. that is what they like to tell, and they are good that it. i am not against positive stories. the republican convention was about people who came to america and succeeded, people who were born in america up for and succeeded and so forth. and every republican consultant and jim demint of the heritage foundation, every one of them says we need positive stories.

if somebody is spending $200 million to tower you as a corporate predator and someone who killed a woman because she -- who had cancer and mistreats his dog , voters are not going to exactly listen to your positive stories or care about them. somebody thinks you are a racist. they're not going to listen to your policy proposals and the same way as if they don't that should be obvious what should republicans to? this is a kind of rough amount of the book that i have read, "take no prisoners". the foreign policy issue is paramount to republicans in the next election which is why i began with it.

aside from the fact that it is the anniversary of 9/11. what should be the republican punch in the mouth? you are going to have to fight fire with fire to it to him before he does it to you. that is basic. politics is a street fight. i think there is a character logical problem with republicans who are well brought up. they are averse to street fights. they want to play by the rules. they would like politics to be a debate about policy. it is not a debate about policy. it is a debate about whether you have abused your dog or not. that is the reality. it has been that way ever since the beginning of the republic. i mean, as you can tell, you

know, i grew up in the left. i grew up as a fighter. it is beyond me why republicans to fight back. i did not really understand, but here is the punch in and out the republicans should use. the democratic party is the party of racism. in the 60's -- [applause] in the 1960's the civil rights act outlawed, outlawed racial categories in laws and regulations governing institutions. the democrats have spent 50 years putting racial categories back in. racial categories account defined whether you will kick in to one school are not, whether you can get a job and, in fact, almost every aspect of our report for life is under the gun

from the democrats ratio, racist categorizing of everything. we just witnessed in ferguson, misery a month-long plunge mob. that is what it was. before the trial try and hang and. no justice. that is a threat, a kind of threat. it was led by the nation's leading flemish mob leader, al sharpton who is the president's adviser on race relations. the president is a racist. everybody knows that. [applause]

we have another racist eric holder conducting a witch hunt. [applause] where is the republican who has ever called the democrats are racist? the democrats control every major city in america, chicago, st. louis, philadelphia, detroit, new york, los angeles, and they have for 50-100 years. monopoly control. everything that is wrong with the inner cities of america that policy can affect, democrats are responsible for them. [applause] they are destroying and have destroyed the lives of millions, millions of poor, black, and hispanic children who they trapped in public

schools that the year in and year out for 30 years do not teach. they will fight to the death to prevent these kids from getting scholarships called vouchers so that they can find schools that will teach them. [applause] and at the same time -- [applause] at the same time democrats send their own kids, including the president of the united states, the fancy , private schools. how racist is that? had no republican will mention it. [applause] why are the republicans holding the 2016 convention in detroit, the symbol of democratic oppression of puller black -- [applause] -- pour black people. detroit in 1961 was the richest per-capita city in america, the crown jewel of industrial america.

in the 1961 a liberal democrat was elected there and began putting in place democratic policies. those policies are anti business. those policies are anti white. that is what they are. what they did was drive out the business community from its right into the suburbs and drove out the white middle class which was their tax base. and so today, of course, detroit is bankrupt, the poorest and large city in america. two-thirds of its population argon. it was 2 million. now it is 800,000. 85 percent african-american. 45 percent are unemployed. 30 percent are on food stamps. they took a first world's giant and turned it into a third world country in one generation.

that is what the democrats to when there are no republicans around to stop them. yet not one -- why isn't the republican party running ads about detroit? chicago which is a war zone. who is responsible for that? one out of 47 aldermen in chicago, one republican or two. i don't get it. i don't get it. the civil rights movement has become an alleged mob. i've wanted to mention this because i find this extremely telling. they took a woman named paula dean who has built a multimillion-dollar business on tv, three tv, and they took this woman and destroyed her business and her wealth and they made her into a poster child for

racism. this was a woman who voted for barack obama, a woman who gave millions of dollars through charity to poor black children in the inner city, and her crime, her crime was that in a private conversation 25 years earlier she had used the n- word, which this used to be a free country. only black people can use the n-word. use to the in-word in a private conversation with her husband after she had been bugged during a plant -- bank robbery by a black criminal. that was her crime. why do republicans call these people levels? they are big hits is what they are. they are not -- [applause] the only thing they are liberal about is sex, drugs,

and spending other people's money. [laughter] [applause] democrats don't care about minorities and the poor. if they did they would have done something in the last 50 years to help these people. what have they done? the incredible libels, how the democrats run their political campaign, republicans are anti woman, conducting a war on women. think about the democrats with their diabolical, evil welfare program have done this single mothers for generations now and the inner cities. they give the mother of three apartment, free food to my $1,500 or so a month and they tell them it is a

life of poverty forever. you take away any incentive they have to go out and make a life for themselves. and worse they give them $200 for every child that they produce. they're turning out children who are condemned to lives of poverty and crime that probably a lot of them will die young through game violence. that is what they have done. the republican who is saying this. every time they make a speech. every time they confronted debbie wasserman shultz. you are racist. wicket what your party is doing to poor black and hispanic children and mothers in this country. [applause] democrats obviously don't care about minorities and the poor. they throw them crumbs and

get their votes. they lied to them to get their votes. the republicans win black churches will be burned and so forth and so on. the democratic campaigns. how they convince minorities and the poor that they care? that be taken second to talk about why it carries the most important word in politics. everybody knows that policy issues -- i guess paul ryan does not understand this. policy issues are so complex, so complex that you cannot make the arguments of a policy stake in political conduct. what people vote for, they want somebody to represent them, somebody that they feel they can trust to care about them. cnn did an exit poll after

the 2012 election, and the questions were if a candidate shares your vision for the future, shares your policy preferences -- i cannot remember the third. no, has the qualities of a leader, something like that, and cares about you. it romney won the first three by 54%. the first three questions. but obama beat him 80-18, 80% to 18% on cares about you. asian americans voted 70% to for obama. asian-americans have republican values, strong families, strong education, entrepreneurship, but they voted for obama because they thought he cared about them.

how do the democrats show -- persuade people that they care about them when they did not? and obviously one answer is that the republicans collude into silence about all of the terrible things that they have done to poor people. i mean, maybe you have read the stories. during the obama administration the only part of the population that increased its wealth was the top 10%. black unemployment is off the chart. okay. so how do they convince these people that they care. by attacking republicans as racist, it is selfish and uncaring. [applause] that is how they do it. if you do not attack in politics and go straight for the jugular, you are

probably going to lose. sometimes the democrats screw up so big, as in the last two years that they gave republicans an election. so i believe in november we will see a republican victory. but i do not see that in 2016 because the democratic wires and slanderers will be out there in force with hundreds of millions of dollars behind their lines. because they think they are saving the world and think very highly of themselves, if you have not noticed. that is why they are so rude and always interrupting because they see their opponents as evil and themselves as saints. republicans are talking about of reach to minority communities.

well and good. but if you are black and living in the inner city, when have you seen the republican party stand up for you? out reach is not going to do any good as long as the republican party does not stand up for the underdog in this country. why isn't the republican party proposing a $500 billion voucher program, why aren't they voucher rising all public schools? [applause] poor black and hispanic and poor white children for that matter can have a shot at the american dream the way he obama kits to. why isn't the republican party doing that? when the republican party does that they will get support in the black community and better yet support from middle-class america.

this is of health republicans do it. and i samantha. he does not have the political branch itself. he passed a budget in april which as budget cuts. but as kathleen republicans in congress cannot cut the budget can't? so what did they do teeth. that is a basic with the 80th. and going to pick one qaeda from the cuts. the legal services. $420 million government

program. for all i no -- he cut the entire thing. does it do no good? you could not argue this out in a political debate. you do not have time. the presidential debates, what do they have, three minutes? three minutes. what is the legal services corporation? a government program to provide lawyers for an impoverished people who need them. paul ryan has made enemies of poor people. he has made enemies of advocates for the poor and much more important enemies of middle-class americans who are charitable people who want to help the unfortunate. that is all he has done with his budget.

i mean, i am all for outreach and saying, you know, look, we are not really so bad. we do not hate black people and so forth, but nothing is going to happen until a republican party stands out for the inner cities of america which are under the appeals of the democratic party. one other thing -- i mean, there are a lot of other things, but one that i particularly want to mention is to these people are in the democratic party. i grew up in a communist community in the early years of the cold war. i have watched that communist community transmogrify itself into the new left which is a communist movement and then take over the democratic party. the culture of the people

that i grew up with the all thought of themselves as patriots during the cold war , thought of themselves as people inclined to be jeffersonian democrats. don't watch the rhetoric. watch what they do. they are progressives. i never heard my parents ever refer to themselves as communist, although they were car carrying. there were all progressives. they belong to the progressive party at the time. what is a progressive? they are fundamentally different people conservatives look at the past and say this is how human beings behave. if we're going to create policies we have to take into account real people and how they behave.

progressives look to an imaginary future called social justice. communism, socialism, it is all the same thing, a world where we all get along, world without war, a world without polluters which is why they are destroying our borders as we speak of all world where everyone is equal. this is a fantasy leveled carried it can exist. you understand the first thing about human beings. what it leads to is a totalitarian state because you have to force people to behave in the way you think they should behave instead of dealing with the way that they do behave and trying to make the best of it, which is what the market does. obamacare -- this is a communist program. their goal is a single payer

system where the government controls everything. first of all, let's compare obamacare. nancy pelosi standing at the well of the house beaming when they passed obamacare and said -- i don't remember which came first. probably social security. then medicare and now obamacare. social security bankrupt, medicare bankrupt. now we will triple down with another. worse, when you have these comprehensive programs even though they do not work social security, if you look it up and medicare were passed by a vast majorities in both parties. obamacare was rammed through by one party without a single republican vote.

we have never been this divided since the civil war, and that is a direct result of this president. it is not obama as much as i despise him. it is not obama. it is the democratic party. this is a radical party. to do that is radical. it is not within the american tradition of compromise. [applause] end of this is the archetype progressive program. they sold it byline. when obama ran, government -- a government system is bad. it a partisan system is bad. it has to be in the middle. no, it doesn't. this is not in the middle. how did they sell it? a charitable act to temper the uninsured. no, it doesn't.

to lower health care costs. no, it doesn't. you can keep your doctor, keep your plan. why, why, why, why. why do they like? because the agenda of obamacare was control of the population. everybody will be in a health care program that the government controls. they already have in movement to get people to die early, expensive medical procedures that would extend the lives. the government will control your life expectancy. the government will have access to all your information, health and financial. this is a war on individual freedom, and we have lost a major part of our individual

freedom. no longer can you choose your health care plan. the government will give you options. some day they may give you one. the options are at my age i have to have paternity coverage. the government doesn't -- this is about control. it is a war on individual freedom. for republicans, i have not heard an attack that way by republican unfortunately. to go -- the goal of progressives is to control individual lives. that is why, you know, they did not start out saying let's kill 40 million people . that's what it was about, but the plans because there were socialists -- and the democratic party is now a

socialist party. their plan involved remaking human beings, remaking human beings. and the only way you can accomplish that is by a totalitarian state. everything the democrats to is an attack on individual freedom and laying the groundwork for a totalitarian state. they would deny it if you confronted them. i am waiting for republicans to wake up. i have written this book. we put it in the hands of every member of congress. [applause] the only member of congress who call me was center ron johnson of wisconsin and said he wanted to put it in practice. people on the are in see tell me they want to put it in practice. i will believe it when i see it. as i said, republicans --

the republican party is, first of all, a party of small business. you are conflict of verse. you want customers, not fights. ..

we have time for questions. >> my name is jeanine, and i read your book. it's absolutely brilliant. need to buy them for everybody you know. first of all, do you know the parson committee is spending half a million dollars in north carolina and we have been personally going after marry landrieu and the republican senators there, and attacking them about their records and on abortion, and on education, and on the energy policies that are driving up electric bills, on black television and black radio stations and -- >> mary landrieu is a democrat. >> they're attacking her personally. >> that's good. i'm all for it. i said that's good. i'm all for it. so this is an optimistic report. [laughter] [applause] >> i have to see him in action

more politically. i think ben carson is a wonderful human being. we have had him on our platforms, but politics is a very, very dirty business, and i want to see ray donovan. carl can handle that. >> hi, david. you touched on this, but there's always been a disconnect in my mind between people who have considered themselves visionary the vanguard of history and on the right side of history but ignore all the historical lessons, starting with the french revolution, and the -- >> everything the democrats are proposing has been died and -- been tried and shown to be ruinous, ruinous. >> right. >> who couldn't predict that obamacare would have huge problems? it's really too bad we had a

supreme court justice who made a terrible, terrible decision. this is an unconstitutional. the reason obama violates the constitution legally is that radicals hate the constitution because it prevents them from doing these schemes like obamacare. >> in your friends and family, when they saw the failures of the socialist regimes and the crumbling of the communist regime in russia, did they stop and think they were on the wrong side of history? >> no. they thought, oh, god, now we don't have to defend the soviet union. we're going to try it again. i kid you not. that's what they -- they didn't write it in those terms but that's what they wrote, of course: socialism is dead. long live socialism. >> so it's really historical disconnect in their mind. >> they're religious fanatics. that's what progressives are.

religious fanatics. there are books about people who are in religions that predict the doomsday, and the doomsday comes comes comes and goes. you have to understand that the progressives' creed, functions, the same way a religion did -- does. it's a consolation. it makes you really important. you're recreating the world. it takes your mind off the fact that you may be vanishing and so forth. it is a religious movement, and, therefore, facts don't matter. a religious movement in this life. i don't want to say that -- what i would call an authentic religion is really about the next life, not about this one. >> well, i'm here to make a statement about you, david.

>> uh-huh. embarrassing. >> you're my north star, my guiding light, my touchstone. you are my hero, i -- you have given me the courage. i have only had courage because you had courage. only because of your courage have i had the courage to begin to write. you have mentored me, championed me, supported men and i have to give you my deepest, deepest gratitude because i'm now very frightened. i moved out into the public and i am terrified. i need your advice how to survive all these years, punching them in the know, because i'm going out there to do it. i also want to say they do these things with language. now they made voucher a dirty word. they have made voucher a dirty word now. also, i really need to hear what you would say to me as i move out into this nose-punching

thing, how to survive these vicious, vicious people. >> right. first, let me thank you for the kind words. [applause] >> going to go home after this and get a dose of reality. for the fight, first of all, it's nothing personal. when you get attacked -- the first thing when i used to be attacked, i -- it was very hurtful. and it's hurtful if you don't have a big public presence, nice defame you and there's no way to strike back. it's nothing personal. this is -- i don't know mitchell optimism -- i don't know. my optimism, i was born with it. that's what i think. so my head tells me we're in for very terrible times, but my heart says, people are waking up

and we're going to fight and win. [applause] >> may god bless you give you long life. >> thank you, mark. >> point is, a few years, the last couple of years you had donald resumes field as a speaker at this luncheon, and after lunch i was able to ask him a question, which he gave an answer, which had some nonpublic information, which addresses iraq. and i said to him, before we invaded iraq there was a satellite picture on tv of a very large convoy of russian trucks going from iraq into syria. my first thought was, there go the weapons of mass destruction. and his answer was this. we thought so, too. but we couldn't prove it.

>> well, the iraq war was fought with too few troops. why? because every since the vietnam war, the democrats waged a war against america playing a role in the world. between 1973, when we pulled out of vietnam, and 2003, when we -- our troops entered iraq, the united states had been able to put troops on the battlefield for exactly four days in a war, which was the gulf -- first gulf war. that's it. so, the way that rumsfeld and bush designed the war, rumsfeld really design the war, was to avoid democrat attacks from being -- whatever -- imperialists.

they didn't go into syria because of -- for the same reason. by that time the democratic party was in full throat, accusing -- you know, when i -- i wrote a book about -- actually have written three book about iraq. the third one will be out in october. part of the black book series. but the second book -- i forgot my train of thought there. we were doing rum field and -- oh, why -- yeah. they didn't go into syria because the democrats -- well, they were exposing national security programs, the left, destroying national security programs that protected americans from terrorist attacks, and they got -- and the bush administration was paralyzed. they should have prosecuted "the new york times" and the "washington post" for publishing

them. and they should have gone after -- they should have been saying, this is treasonous. what you're going is treasonous. we're at war. oh, when i wrote the second book on iraq -- now i remember -- i actually took a psychological warfare manual out of -- probably off the internet. what does it said? when you're conducting a psychological warfare campaign, the first thing you do is attack the moral character of the commander-in-chief. and that is what "the new york times --" "the new york times" ran this stupid minor indent at abu ghraib. 60 days a front-page story. the holocaust, they started stories about the holocaust, six times in six years, six front-page stories, but if you read them, sometimes they mention the jews in the 14th

14th paragraph. yet abu ghraib was 60 days on the front pages. it attacked the moral character of american leadership, and paralyzed them. this is -- i am horrified because there's such silence around this. nobody is using these term you heard today from me, about this. yet i don't see there's any other term that could be accurately applied. >> another n-word is the word naziism. i'm convinced that the democratic party is totally soft and totally blind to current naziism, whether it's hamas oar hezbollah or islamists isis, and i'm wondering from a tactical point of view, whether we can't label the democratic opponent as soft on naziism --

>> nobody would understand it. i think you're right. islamic naziism is the exact, correct term for who they are. but the democratic party, the brain trust of the party, the center for american progress, has defamed every -- everyone who use the word islamo -- as islamophobes. in collusion with the muslim brotherhood. there should be an investigation of uma senior abadee, hiry's right hand and the chief adviser on muslim affairs, and she was a political operative for the muslim brotherhood. there's no question about that. >> you touched in a comment

while i was in lane, saying that the democratic party is a religious movement almost. >> progressive. >> well, you also -- >> democratic party has some principled people, joe lieberman, and actually dick gephardt, did not turn around 180 degrees and attack america's war in iraq. they defended it. go ahead. progressivism -- if you are guided by an imaginary future, where you think people ought to live, and you want the government to enforce that future, then you are no different from the communists and you're totalitarian. >> understood. my concern is this. having just sent off a daughter, raised in a very strong conservative home with tremendous values, to college,

where she is now, for the first time can registered to vote as an independent, apologizing in effect to us, because she has become a product of what her schooling has unfortunately public school, fortunately public school, because we took advantage of the system to put her into a very excellent educational -- >> state school. >> no. she is going to a private school. bard college. and bard is very liberal -- >> my condolences. they're not liberal. they're a communist -- the liberal arts programs of the vast majority of elite american schools are run by communists. >> understood. understood it's a very progressive school. but that -- i'm taking away from the personal experience to see what i am concerned about for my daughter and her future. she is fiscally conservative.

not that she knows so much about fiscal responsibility. she's a good saver. progressive socialists. my concern is that the democrats have created a machine that the republicans cannot even approach in seducing young people -- >> yes, that's true. >> -- not address that -- >> the left dominated the entire educational system and that's why they dominate the media, the court, you could go on and on. it's a very -- it's a grim situation. >> so why haven't the republicans woken up to say, this is where we -- >> i conducted a seven year campaign, on a modest proposal, that in university courses there should always be two sides at least to controversial questions, and they should be presented in a fair-minded manner. that was -- and there should be books assigned on both sides. okay? i got very little support from

the republicans. republican party did not take up this campaign, although republicans are -- they must be governors in 30 or 33 states. but i didn't get support. and i -- if you go up on the internet you can find me described as a torkamata and soing for. i will tell you the aup, the american association of university professors, they're stalinists. that's who they are, and they want to indoctrinate students and they fought me so they could indoctrinate students. that was their goal. of course they're winning. however, here's the thing about socialism. it doesn't work. so, at some point they bump into reality, and have to regroup, and when they bump into reali,