in use -- -- brat brat, brat! they are still stunned that somebody like eric cantor can go down. and we're so happy he did. [laughter] we took part in that campaign towards the end. we began to realize a little sooner than other people but almost too late all the same, this guy might have it together. we thought we would go down with a worthy cause but at least we needed to send a little digital salute to mr. cantor. little did we realize, this guy would go across the finish line and he hopefully has given new energy to other people similarly engaged either against rhino in primary or some other form of socialist in the general election. the ruling classes really have

trouble accepting new information. 6 i give you exhibit a, shotgun joe. the vice president, who has all of this advice for the ladies, as to which is the preferred gun for them. none one of those nasty a.r.-15's but shotgun, of course. and within day at least one wag had a video together that showed one woman after another falling flat on her back, shotgun flying out of her hands. having been obstructed what to expect. last frame is lady at a range control fire -- boom, boom, with an ar-15. i knew somebody who knows the vice president personally. he made that information available to him. this person is second amendment expert. sfirmes expert bar none. and it was like water on a duck's back. liberals live in a fact-free environment.

but they play for keeps. they have been trying to tar us and others who object to the rise or continued bloating of big government and its dangers including their efforts to disarm the peasants, us they. they responded by language that could be fatal if not checked. they're calling us from the very top regime in washington calling people like us potential terrorists, returning veterans, pro-lifers. american family association is a hate group. i may have described half the people in here, i don't know. but that's what they're up to, what the nazis did to the jews, soviets did the ukrainian farmers, what americans have done to tie rapts without history, demonized, disarmed

killed. as it always has been, it's in the back of many politician's minds that it is there and they perhaps are recognizing limits. a congressman was talking to a liberal congressman sometime -- that probably doesn't happen too often but he was and admitted it it's not a gun issue. whatever he was, he was talking to her about it. he knew she was connected with gun's right organization. out of the middle of nowhere she said, i bet want to shoot me, don't you. lady, that's what the second amendment is all about. that's what it is all about. keep that in your line as you write your that vranes -- tyrannes laws because it might come into play, that's what it's

there for. we have seen a lot of short comings in this leadership. one of the reasons we're happy eric cantor is kaputsky, he's one of those very instrumental in a surprise -- like ambush on the floor of the house handful of rhino republicans joining democrats in avoiding more money to states could turn more names of people into the federal computers for more people not to be able to get guns. really cool, larry cantor, thanks a million. actually thanks 10 million. we have seen what the president meant by using his pen and phone. operation choke point is all about. putting squeeze on gun stores through the federal deposit insurance corporation. saying these are dangerous businesses there are they have to be charged higher interest rates -- i'm sorry higher rate

for fees for their handling credit cards. or drop all together. happily the free market has come to the rescue and a number of entities, hopefully guns in america will join them soon with a satellite company process and check credit cards for merchants being hammered by the regime. i would like to give you background on how the -- how the gun bill, gun registration bill was killed. weble we were probably two weeks out from the vote and we had not heard from the n.r.a. weigh thought piers morgan has given us this piers morgan e-mail memorial list and everybody came on to our server crashing it three times to find out what we were all about. and a lot of us stayed to get our e-mail and things of that sort to help out lobbying.

we thought maybe we better lobby our big brother because we really need him now. this thing could pass. it was a very touch-and-go enterprise we were engaged in. we put out the e-mail saying look fks you're an n.r.a. member and only if you are, call this guy at this number at the n.r.a. and ask him to get the powers to be to publicly oppose the two mentioned bills. a week later -- i mean, kind of sat still, that's what happened. the next thing was even more surprising. senator mansion went screaming to the media, i have been betrayed. n.r.a. did a 180. we almost had this bill in the bag. we had no idea what was going ofpblet came so close. piers morgan f. you're listening to an n.r.a. monitor, we love you, piers! [applause]

one of the things cantor did to get ire and we're still not sure if we're out of the woods with this weasel is pushing amnesty. if he does that, it's the end of the republican party and much more important, end of the republic. i speak spanish i'm in an hispanic church i know what i'm talking about. 80% democrats and when you vote democrat, you vote for gun control. cant seerms to think immigration will win hearts and minds. i got news for you greg cantor, that will not happen. it will take a lot of work through churches and other entities where these folks work one on one and idea you pass some bill to give them a vote, thanks but no thanks it's just not simple. for us grave, exessential threat

to the second amendment. 10 15 years after it materialized, we're toast. so that's why we were so happy to see cantor go down. sorry boehner didn't go down. but he only got 60% against a 30-year-old vet with no money. i saw this marvelous photo. i couldn't find it before i came up. it depects like 1910 perhaps scene, black and white photo, couple european hunters with lung guns standing near a dead rhino. and the caption on this is -- somewhere in virginia. one of the things got me encouraged is opportunity we had to work with senator krause and

senator lee, probably it was around beginning of august, there was a member with a number of people like yours truly who headed pup people who already opposed obama care or i prefer to call it zero care, we opposed it because it would shovel people who had never been adjudicated into a court of law with any due process and keep to bear be arms. we had been along and local opponent of zero care. we were there with conservative groups. at the meeting also was senator kruse. the thing i had almost never heard from another politician was look don't know whether we're going to win or lose this fight but we have got to fight. wow. that's what i had been waiting for a long time to hear somebody say he's in it for the long haul. he may lose battles but he's in

it to went the war. i think we have a leader we have been looking for. simon bundy and events that came about at the ranch there near. finally somebody stood up and said i'm not going to be pushed around anymore. ton my pleasant surprise and amazement, a lot of other americans agree. and they went out at a drop of a

hat to defend this man. i was called by stuart rose, who heads up road keepers, to attend. it would be held the monday after the feds ended up folding on saturday. i was on my way -- almost on my way to the airport and i got a call from stuart well, they've gone. and they fled because they couldn't quite believe the american people would stand up to him. one of the things i learned that was kind of frightening when the cowboys and i think courgs were riding towards the coral to set free, they had guns aimed at them. not at the ready, at them. 24er7 convinced -- we were able

to watch this unfold realtime. the deputy went up to the b.l.m. boys and said do you want to be known as the folks that gunned down unarmed men and women? and apparently it was a good question. so it really tells you the importance of a sheriff's department. the supremacy of a scher ive is a doctrine that operates in almost every state of our country. and the second amendment was then under the proper authority of an elected county sheriff. and i think that was the way episodes should have ended and the way it did end. memo to washington it can happen again.

in fact, it was on the verge of happening again if you might have seen, although not in the pages of any of the major media that on the red river, boundary between oklahoma and texas, all private land, always has been private land, they were talking about grabbing land because of this that or the other, law force or whatever smrks nonexistent vegetation. militia in both states said we will see you there. they didn't have to deploy. feds got the message -- this is not the time to be messing around with the american people. we had it, eric cantor knows it. others will know it too. [applause] i would say in closing, if you had one question and one demand that you might make on your particularly members of the house or those running for such a position, are you going to

work to get the spineless leadership of your party to defund x, y and z programs -- let's start particularly with not raising the debt limit. let's start with defunding zero care. and go on from other things who care to be equally dealt with as urgently. if we inject that into these campaigns, they will realize what happened to eric cantor was not a fluke. eric cantor was the first burst of lava coming out of a pept-up volcano that has finally burst forth. let's do it, folks. [applause] >> before paul comes up and introduces our final speaker, the volunteers in about three minutes are going to go around and collect envelopes.

please make sure you made your bid. no bid too small. if you all you have is $5. it all goes toward our p.d.f. fund which we're going to need this year in this election. this is a crucial election. and the political victory fund, all of the funds let me be clear, we don't write checks to candidates. we don't run ads. we send out alerts that cost a lot of money. we don't put the money in pockets but we do action item that's support them. and then is think there anybody else that is interested in a raffle ticket for john lott's foundation for gat tar? if there is, raise your hand andly come by -- there we go.

raise your hand and i will come by for that. thank you. >> our next guest held teacher positions at the university of chicago, yale university, stan forward, ucla, wharton and rice and chief economist at the united states sentencing commission. his passbooks included three editions of my favorite more guns less crime. crime and freedom-onimi crft s. lott is contributor and weekly columnist for fox news.com, opinion pieces by lott have appeared in such places as "the wall street journal," "the new york times," "l.a. times," "the new york times," "usa today," chicago tribune. he's appeared in such television programs as abc and nbc nationally evening news broadcast, fox news and newshour

jw jim lehrer and the "today" show. ann coulter called him one of america's most feared economists. and she said, can you tell the conservatives liberals fear most because they start being automatically referred to as discreditted. ask senator ted cruz. no one is called by liberals more often than the inestimateable economist john lott, author of the groundbreaking book, more guns less crime. dr. lott's topic for the evening -- and let me get this right -- is making up facts about gungs. before i dipet us him though. we have a photo up on the board our history goes back further than you know, john. that's me in about oh, don't know 1995 or so.

and i took it to elon college now elon university. that is me approaching sarah brady. so i approached her entourage and security closed around her. i said, mrs. brady, i understand want to reduce violence. i want to help you do that. and she beamed and the security guards parted. i said, i think you need this. and i slapped dr. lott's study into her hand. we bring you john lott and his topic again is "making up facts about guns." [applause]

>> i greatly appreciate the chance to talk to you all again. there's been a lot going on here. it's kind of fortunate paul earlier played a video when shannon watts was on 0 cnn. and it foreshadowed shft discussion i would be having, amazingly within a minute or two there, you had several claims that were being made there. 40% of guns were obtained with that background check. purchasing would with background checks. claims would you have seen many times over the last year by president obama, it's finally after a long time you would go and have some of the media fact checks point out here you have a

survey tiny survey that is done over two decades ago that was done before we had the brady law in effect. and it wasn't just sales. most of that was actually 36% were transfers within family gifts or inheritance. and just the fact somebody would go and just change the terminology from saying, apparent gifting or inheritance good child with a gun and somehow called it a gun sale, scare people that somehow unrelated people were obtaining guns, just gave you some idea how far people were willing to go in order to try to make up numbers or claims. and so it is just -- in the last

couple of weeks, the president has gone and made many other statements. en-minute presentation a couple weeks ago, like ten days ago. then must have had maybe about 15 false, completely false statements twhan short period of time. what i thought i would try to do is go through some of the those and talk a little bit about the supporting evidence that he brings up in order to try to support that. let's say i have known obama for number of years. maybe 18 years or so. we both taught at the university chicago law school for appeared of time. and he's a true believer. i'm not going to use terms like nazi germany in the '30's but people may have referenced today. is it dangerous for people to go and produce misinformation. does it create corn fusion in the debate and make it so we might adopt laws that are

incorrect? yeah, i think there are real dangers and real dangers for people's safety. just you go through a few now. these are ten days old from president obama. one thing he mentioned -- my biggest frustration is society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the people who can just do unbelievable damage. we're the only developed nation on earth where this happens. just typical exaggeration in this case. want to ask the person, is norway a developed nation? in july 2011 ignoring bomb deaths that were there you had a shooter that killed 69 with a gun and wounded 110 other people. that's the record right now for single person killer.

most people may not realize this but two of the three worse k-12 public school shootings in the world occurred in germany. and they both have occurred in germany since the year 2001. one in fred, germany 18 people killed and the other one in lyndon germany, you had 15 people killed. earlier, we did done work looking at mass public shootings in 2000 to 2010 and what you find is the per capita rate of pass public shootings really sent that much different than the united states. you say how can k that possibly be. i haven't heard of these things. you look at the attacks which are worse than columbine how many of you have known these tacks in germany. it's interesting when you have horrible attacks occur it may get hour or two worth of media coverage in the united states

and then disappears. europe gets much more coverage of the american mass shootings than the united states does of europe. you may not realize finland within last four years has had several big attacks where ten people or so have been killed at a university or mall. you wouldn't have known that by trying to depend upon american media in order to try to understand that. the president then went on and referring to apparently according to the white house, refering to bloomberg's numbers that came out last week about school shootings said and now once a week, we have something like this happen. let's just take a minute about these claims that came out by bloomberg. where he says there have been 74 school shootings since newtown. we had this type of argument before in february, we produced

the type of number where's at that time it had been 44. the amazing thing to me is how uncritically the media covers these things. within like two weeks you had, had well over 2,000 different news stories about it when it came out in february. none critical. none of them going and asking an academic or critic to go and evaluate the type of claim there. pretty much put out as received wisdom. you got pretty similar pods of coverage for while with 74 but this time at least had you places like cnn or political fact amazingly enough, daily caller doing fact checks. pointing out something hi been arguing for six -- i had been arguing six months. it's included unrelated cases of school property. you have an example of a 19-year-old whose gambling about a block off the school property get into a dispute over the

money being gambled and shot to death. well i don't know why this keeps coming up. i have a feeling we're going to have a problem with that. the question is, is it a tragedy that somebody gets shot near an elementary school whose engaged in gambling? here it is. nobody want that's to happen. nor if you have a 43-year-old man who commits suicide at 2:00 a.m. in the morning near a school or at a school? yeah, that's a tragedy. but these are not the type of shooting incidents that go and terrify parents when you go and talk about these things. many of these event $not any tragedies or deaths or injuries occurring. ly show you one possibly better way of looking at this and that is how what's happened to the number of deaths over time? you take 125 instances cnn

claimed occurred since newtown. still sounds like a lot. they don't go through and carefully tell you people die, was anybody shot in these instances? and if you look at this you actually have seen over the last couple decades a fairly significant drop in the rate of people dyeing from mass shootings on either k through 12 or universities. in the five years because we start getting this data pretty solidly, there's a couple organizations that start collecting this back in 1992, if you look at the first five years, you're talking about an average of 26 deaths a year. obviously any death is too much. if you look at the last five years, even with newtown, average per year is about 12. so it's fallen from 26 to 12. that about a 55% drop. greater drop than we had over that same period of time in

terms of murder rates that occurred there. i don't think people want to go and phrase things like this in terms of kind of what's the bottom line, in terms of how many people get killed or injured in these attacks. it takes away a little bit from trying to exaggerate the fear factor there i think. again, one death is too many. i'm happy to talk about thing that's can be done in order to try to prevent those attacks that still do occur. if we're going to have a sensible debate. we at least have to agree what's happening to the numbers here. i will give you another quote from the president. we're putting some common sense rules in place to make a department to what's happening. until that is not just the majority of you because that's already the majority of you, even majority of gun owners believe this. i showed you a misstatement by the president with regard to the

background checks that were there. it's not too surprising p hem hear those types of claims they may also make mistakes with regard to what they think the current laws are or not. you look at this and in fact you know, you can get some surveys that go and say -- do you support background checks on gun seals? you will find 80% to 90% go and do that. the question is what is meant there? it's interesting if you go and ask people about specific legislation, for example here's a pew poll that came out last april that asked people about the particular vote before the senate asking are you, are you very happy to very angry about the fact the senate bill was defeated? that didn't go forward. if i look at republicans about

51% were either very happy or relieved it was defeated. only 34% were disappointed it was defeated. among independents more independents were happy the bill was defeated than were disappointed. 48% to 41%. only democrat at 62% to 22% 67% to 22% margin were disappointed as a result of that. can you see other polls that when they specifically ask them about the actual law that was up there, the other thing that's interesting if you go and ask people what do you think will happen with background checks? poll after poll shows people don't believe it will have an impact in terms of protecting people. i will give you two. in fact, rasmussen is -- people are relatively optimistic saying it will have a benefit. they found even there though only 41% believe more background

checks would reduce gun violence. from december, a recent pool that included background checks in their list by 63% to 32% margin, they don't believe that tighter background controls, quote, would not be effective in obtaining criminals from gaining guns. the interesting thing is if you actually look at the background checks there, there's basically almost no criminals who are stopped from being able to go and obtain guns. when the president goes and says there are 2 million prohibited people stopped from buying guns because of background checks, the right terminology is there are 2 million initial denials. there's a huge difference between using the term initial denial and prohibited people being sprepted. i will give you one example. you may remember the late

senator ted kennedy. five times he was on the no-fly list. five times when went to the airport and tried to board a plane, there was somebody else would had name similar to him and therefore stopped from flying. ok a sume the president's not going to count that as five times we stopped a terrorist from flying but that's essentially the way the numbers are counted when they go and do the background checks counts they have here. if you look at the numbers for 2010, they stopped reporting them this way under the obama administration. but you can see there were 76,000 initial denials. only 44 of those deemed worthy of prosecution and they got 13 convictions. if you look at those 13 convictions, my guess is none of you would think these are seriously dangerous people that are there. people who made mistakes and didn't realize they had some covered chance prevented them from doing it.

what's interesting just a couple weeks ago, less and this a couple weeks ago, mark glaze, who's just now stopped being the executive director for michael bloomberg's every town group had an interview with "the wall street journal." one of the things that came out in there. many people knows these people would not be stopped by background checks. let me read what he says quote the miss match and solution swrezz to offer and the ways some of mass shootings happened, we know it's a messaging for us, i think. it's a messaging problem where mass shooting happen and nothing we have to offer, nothing we have to offer would have stopped that mass shooting.

if i just go and ask you, are you in favor of background checks on gun seals, it gets a very high rate. people think it should be done. just a little more information, national shootings sports foundation hired snob do an alternative poll and they just provided some background information. said a vast majority of guns sold at gun shows are sold through license dealers required by federal law to conduct background checks before guns or sold. do you believe additional federal laws like universal background checks are necessary for gun show seals. if you ask it that way, you get 53% no, 40% yes, 7% don't know. quite a bit different from kind of what you would hear constantly in terms of what we should be doing here. i don't know if i'm going through this.

the president has this boogieman in terms of gun groups and people here, having all of the money. they couldn't possibly believe the things they say they believe. if you're running for election now, that's where you feel the heat, from the n.r.a. and gun manufacturers. at age went through advertisements on gun issues, pro and con. and found gun control organizations in 2013 actually spent 7.4 times more on television opponents than television advertising than their opponents did. bloomberg spending pledging to spend $50 million a year and giffords group is going sfoned

$20 million this year. you so you get an idea. those are just two of them. and could go on literally there's like 15 of these quotes in just 7 mings. i will just go through a couple more. and we have this. it's the internet trying to log on here. australia just said, well, that's it, very strict, you tough gun laws and they haven't had mass shooting since. coy go and talk about the fact they had a buy-back but gun seals have gone back up. gun ownership rate about a third drop in gun ownership when they had the buy-back but gun ownership right now in australia is pretty much back to where it was before the buy-back. so put that aside because obviously that impacts how one will talk about it. but the thing is, you just can't

pick one data point. i can pick one state to go and look at, different states have had different laws. i can look at new zealand for example. new zealand, neighboring australia, an isolated island nation again if you look at new zealand, mass shooting rate prior to -- over the same period of time people talk about for australia, 1980 to '96, they had .005 incidents per 100,000 people. that was actually higher than australia's, which was .0042. after that, both countries have had zero mass shootings. well australia may have changed its laws but new zealand didn't. again, it's what we call cherry-picking. it's like i can go and flip a coin 20 times, get 10 heads and 10 tails. would i let somebody go and say i will pick five tails from that

sample and say it's obviously a bias point because all five are heads. you don't do that. you don't just pick one number. there's a reason why these guys don't point to places like europe for example in these discussions. germ has more stringent law -- germany has more stricken jept laws than australia and some of the worse mass shootings but they wouldn't want to include that in their discussions. what tried to do with bill landis, university of chicago, looked at all of the mass shootings over the united states over a couple decades and what we found was that we looked at 13 different types of gun laws. the only one that had any impact on the rate of these mass shootings was the passage of concealed carry laws. about 60% drop in the rate at choo these attacks occur -- rate at which these attacks occurred and 80% in which people were killed or injured from these attacks. the reason why you looked at all of the states, rather than just

picking one, is because you just -- there are so many thing that's can change. if i can go and pick one state, i hope nobody would believe that. now i talm about an example, i have wring some things about multiple studies policeman put out. i want to go into detail. it's gotten massive news. you probably don't realize the influence it's had. back in january 2013, bloomberg put out a study basically saying that in '96, there had been an amendment to the federal budget that had restricted money going to the c.b.c. saying they could not use government funds to lobby for gun control. a lot of claims bloom groups claimed theanded federally funded research, research dried up.

i can give you quotes but some of the media things. basically they are relying on this original study. headlines from the "the washington post" proclaimed, quote, federal sign tests can again research gun violence. this is after obama kind of out laterally changed the rules. or gun research is allowed again. with the star claims quote, am demmics were forced to stop their research at the point of a gun or at least at the insistence of the national rifle association. in april 2013, abc, "20/20" ran a segment entitled c.d.c. on ban research caused lasting damage or c.d.c. noted in 1986 lobby congress to pull millions of delaffers oust firearm research and that results essentially in a 17-year moratorium on major studies about gun injuries.

well just to kind of say here, this was a study by bloomberg. ly give you one quote from the bloomberg study. it says, quote, the amendment that so-called dickey amendment quote, has driven many experts -- has driven many experts to abandon the field and keep young researchers from taking it up. you think that is declining in materials. that seems clear. but decline has undermined yomb all knowledge creation because scholars are highly againant on federal grants to support their research. i will tell you only about 3% of firearms research and medical journals are funded by the federal government. in any case, the bail itself, the way it's read, quote, none of the funds made available for

injured sprention patrol at the centers for disease control and prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control. that's all it said. how did bloomberg's people measure this? what they did was they looked at medical journal articles on firearms as a percentage of all medical journal research. they will point out the percentage of articles on firearms fell fairly substantially from '96 to 2011, when they stopped doing it. they didn't include the numbers from the year prior to their study. gone up a little and it's gone up hugely in 2013. but the problem is they were never saying that the percentage of articles were falling. they were talking about leaving not doing research. that means number of articles. what basically happened is the number of articles on firearms

research went up it's just medical journal articles on everything else went up even more. that's a different type of claim. for example, if you just looked at the number of articles, so growing quite quickly. it's true, it didn't keep on growing at the same rate but it's still has gone up a little bit afterwards and by 2013 it's about double what it was in 1996. and if you look at the total number of pages because they say how substantial are these articles that are there you find an even bigger increase in the number of pages in medical journals because the average article on firearms became longer so there was more of them and the average length became longer. so, you know length of articles is related to how substantial they are, then that would seem to go against that claim.

so neither the number of studies nor the pages on research have fallen. the average for the length of studies has gone up. why do we need government funding for research? i've done some of the largest studies that have been done on gun control, i think, by far, in terms of the most data. you look at a lot of these medical journal studies, they have what we call 50 observations, 50 states in one year. i don't know how you pick one year to look at but they do. when i look at things, people who have looked at my books know that i look at all the counties in the united states or all the cities in the united states by year for as many years as that data's available and try to compare how crime rates change over time in places that change their laws relative to ones that don't. well my concern about government funding is two-fold. one, i don't really see the need. it's not like we're building

cyclotron out there. what it is i would go bell frequently and have a graduate student and say look, if you work on this with me, i could pay you or make you my co-author. a lot of graduate students want their name on something published because they want to get an academic job later on. the problem with government funding research is that politicians cannot keep politics out of who they give the money to. i'm not saying that when they go and give this money they say and you'll get this conclusion. what happens is they know the politics of different people who apply and the people who agree with them politically are the ones who get the funding and the ones who don't, don't get the funding. there's no reason why we should go and use federal tax dollars to go and subsidize one side's research vs. another in this debate and it's not clear to me

why the federal government should get involved at all in this discussion. now, the video had a little bit of a discussion between cnn and shannon watts. since he played the video i'm not going to go through the whole thing but she was asked is there an example in school shootings or malls or public facilities where basically bad guy with a gun has been stopped in any other way besides -- besides by the police officer has a civilian used their gun to stop them from committing this crime. and she says, this has never happened. and of course, there's laughter here. i'm sure without any problem we could go through a long list of things. you look at schools like enborrow, pennsylvania. you have pearl, mississippi. you have universities like appalachian law school. you have malls like in salt lake

city, and portland, oregon, that have been stopped. you have churches like the universal life church. i could mention to you shootings on streets in memphis in downtown areas in oklahoma city. other places, many of them, public shootings have been stopped by citizens with guns paul briefly talked about the shooting in las vegas. the one thing that i would add about it is that here you have this guy, it's true, he died, but he stopped temporarily the male killer there. the female had to go and get a cart, pretend to be one of the shoppers go around behind him and then shoot him in the back and kill him. the question is how long that took. i have no idea. but for her to think of the idea, to get the cart, move strategically to be behind him. let's say it's 30 seconds. you have people running out.

people -- you're giving them a 30-second head start then, if even that's all it took, to be able to go and leave the area. everybody by all accounts it was a crowded wal-mart. isn't it amazing that with a crowded wal-mart he, this permit holder was the only person in the wal-mart that they were able to go and kill? so anyway, but i just want to go and point out something and that is, just in the last month we have been deluged with information about, as we have in the past, about what goes through these killers' minds. i'll give you a couple of examples. elliott rodg, the killer in santa barbara. have you read this guy's manifesto? you go and read it and several places in there, i'm just going to read you one, he explicitly talks about why he picked a particular place to go and attack. and so here he says, another

option dell topia, in which many people pour in to have a spring break party. i figured that was a perfect day to attack isla vista but i saw from youtube videos there were too many cops walking around. he's essentially saying -- and if you read this, the guy wants attention, he feels he's not given the proper attention, he wants to give as many people as possible but worries that with multiple police officers there he'll be stopped because they have guns and they'll be able to stop him. the new brunswick killer in canada. this is from his facebook page. this guy had a half dozen comics dealing with gun-free zones on his facebook page. this is just one of the comics

he had. so he has a civilian who's being attacked by a criminal here, it says, but wait, there's a gun ban in this city, you can't do this, we've passed a law. it's supposed to be all rainbows and unicorns from now on and of course the criminal's basically thinking what a moron, he has his gun in his back and getting ready to shoot it, knows that the victim can't be there. this guy picked a place where he knew civilians around there weren't able to defend themselves and it's something he obviously was thinking about. there was a case in rogersville tennessee, earlier in june this month -- i'm just taking things, very recent cases. i could give you lots of others. just reading from the news report there in the local newspaper, said, according to law enforcement officers, the teens intended to be the most notorious mass murders of all time with the highest body count. they allegedly wanted to be

famous and their road to fame would be paved with bodies of their classmates and teachers at volunteer high school in churchill. authorities say the boys who are now 16 17, even studied the 1999 columbine shooting correcting "mistakes" made by those shooters for the purpose of maximizing the number of students and faculty death in the planned volunteer high school massacre. the plan included killing the school resource officer first. why did they do that? they knew he could be the one guy to stop them. you have a uniformed guard there. uniformed guards, god bless them, but they have an incredibly difficult job. they're sitting targets there. it's hard to go and be consciously day after day, month after month, year after year, on your toes in case something might go wrong. and what you end up happening --

happen, not just here but in other cases, but those are the first guys taken out. the question is what's your backup plan? these guys aren't stupid and what do you do at that point when they're not able to go and stop them? i know i'm out of time here. so --ibles -- i believe so right? i always talk longer. you apologize. you know you've got that when you asked me to do it. i apologize. so you can't claim ignorance on that. so -- and even then, i've made a lot of cuts from what i would have liked to have said. i really appreciate the time here. we've had nicki's talk and larry's and andrew's here. there's so much information that's here and the question is how do we go and get this out because the media, you know it's just amazing to me. we can't even get them to go and

mention something as simple as gun-free zones. we have attack after attack. my guess is this debate would be dramatically different if even once in a while when they're going through their chicago list list -- checklist of things, how did they obtain a gun, what type of gun was used, often things that are difficult to determine and they make mistakes about just once in a while, the simplest thing to figure out is did the attack occur in a gun-free zone for the very reasons that nicky was talking about before it serves as a magnet for these type of attacks, we see the comics and other things from these killers. if that was mentioned, my guess is that the political debate we have right now would be dramatically different from the way it is. thank you very much. i appreciate your time. [applause] >> coming up on the next "washington journal," amanda

becker talks about the supremes court decision in a case involving public-sector unions. after that, a look at the june jobs numbers. and then patrick nolengeyer discusses a report on prosperity and opportunity in america. we'll also take your phone calls and look for your comments on face book and twitter. beginning live saturday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> so i tell the story about how i, who -- every speck of -- every aspect of who'sis a threat. my ethnicity is persian, my culture is middle eastern. everything about me is, sends

off all the warning signals for israel. so the experience of inner rainy and american -- iranian-american single man trying to get through the airport in the 20th century is a reminder for everyone that despite the fact globalization has brought us closer and diminish the boundary that separates us as people and cultures, despite all of that, all you have got to do is spend a few minutes trying to get through ben-gurion airport to remember that those divisions, those things that separate us are still very much alive. >> best-selling author and professor reza aslan will take your phone calls e-mails, and tweets on the war on terror, fundamentalism, and instability in the middle east live for three hours sunday at noon eastern on "book tv's indepth." book tv, television for serious

readers. next, a look at the relationship between islam and the west. the featured speaker is an egyptian american human rights activist nonie darwish. she spoke to the conservative form of silicon valley. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> thank you jerry. before i introduce our speaker tonight, i want to tell you just a quick story. the other day i was chatting with a friend of mine and we were comparing great inventions of various civilizations. i mentioned the microchip, the personal computer and the internet as pretty decent inventions on our side. he scoffed and said, that's nothing compared with the

islamic time machine. i said, islamic time machine? never heard of that one. he said, oh, yeah, it can take any country back 1400 years. our featured speaker tonight was born and raised a muslim in egypt in the gaza strip. her father was a prominent leader of the egyptian military who organized the fetaine operations which targeted and killed hundreds of israeli civilians until he was killed in 1966. she grew up in an environment that cultivated a keen sense of resentment grievance anti-semetism and hatred of israel. she earned a degree at the american university of cairo, emigrated to the united states in 1978, and subsequently converted to christianity.

she founded the group, arabs for israel, in 1994. shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, she began writing pieces critical of islamic extremism. she was a co-founder in 2009 of a group called former muslims united. she's written extensively on islam including several books most recently, "the devil we don't know the dark side of revolutions in the middle east." she covers topics such as human rights and women's rights under islamic law. human rights and women's rights under islamic law. that sounds like a contradiction of terms to me. she lectures on college campuses and internationally and apparently some organizations are fearful of the consequences of her message. just last month, in fact, she had been scheduled as a keynote speaker for i-fest, a week-long

pro-israel event at the university of california at irvine. unfortunately, one of the sponsoring organizations feared the appearance would be too divisive and canceled. she had the wit to reject the teachings of islam and courage to speak out eloquently and fearlessly about the harm that sharia law can and does inflict on its hosts. she deserves our appreciation and admiration. please help me give a warm and conservative welcome to nonie darwish. >> thank you. thank you. what an honor. what an honor, a pleasure to be here with you. really, your group here just warms my heart because i didn't

know there were any conservatives in silicon valley. you are the patriots of today. i learned from you. when i came from egypt and emigrated to this country, i came with baggage. i didn't know what liberty means. i didn't know what human rights meant, women's rights. i didn't know equality. all of this never taught to us. peace, the concept of peace, i didn't know any -- people like you, if americans like you who taught me what i am today so that's why i want to thank you. i lived for 30 years of my life in oppressive dictatorships and police states. i saw and experienced and met people who were killed,

mutilation oppression of women polygamy and how polygamy destroys the family dynamics completely. for a man to be -- have a polygamist marriage, his loyalty is to no one in the end. if you look at the modern marriage contract which is in my second book about sharia, cruel and usual punishment, in the modern marriage contract there's a question for the groom, please name an address of wife number one, wife number two and wife number three, if any. so the bride signs the marriage contract knowing that he does not vow loyalty to her. it's totally different concept from marriage in the judeo christian culture where they both vow loyalty to each other equally. that was a revolution brought to

us by the judeo christian culture. when i see middle east marriages compared to my jewish friends or christian friends, i find it very different, having lived there and lived here. i often see america -- especially in israel powerful men and powerful women who respect each other. in the middle east, you either find two kinds of women. either the doormat or the extremely aggressive, because when you put so much pressure on women, oppress them a lot especially under the law, you will either completely get suffocated or you become extremely aggressive and oppressive and that is something i wouldn't want any woman to experience. i want to start also by telling you that i'm not here to criticize people or muslims the people.

the problem is not the people. it's the ideology, and please, when i speak about islam, don't misunderstood me and think i'm trying to insult muslim people. some of the nicest people i know are muslims. so we're not here speaking about human beings. germany gave us hitler and the most horrific ideology called nazism but that doesn't mean every german was evil. communism was evil because it oppressing evil but it doesn't mean everyone who lives in soviet union was evil so i don't understand why in america we're not getting it. when we criticize islam, we're criticizing anideiology, not people. there's good and bad in every culture so i hope i made myself clear because i often, when i speak, especially on college campuses and i make this statement, at the end, they come back and they say, but why are

you criticizing all muslims? which is not true. and that accusation is happening to silence us, to silence people like me, robert spencer, pamela gellar all of us, bridgette gabrielle, all of us who are really criticizing the ideology. ladies and gentlemen, we are living in very crucial times. we have just succeeded in ending the cold war and now we are starting a new -- we are confronting a new enemy but this enemy we are now -- we don't want to even name by name. this is first time in american history we are in a war and people have declared war against us all over the middle east. we are the great satan.

israel is the little satan. they have declared war on us in every mosque in every mosque. friday prayers always end with "may god destroy the jews and the infidels, israel is the enemy of islam, go kill them and jihad, jihad, jihad." why isn't this coming here and we comment about it? why are we afraid of commenting about it? didn't we have enough with hitler being afraid of commenting on what happened? it's just a different ideology, that's all, but it's preaching the same evil, if not worse because with hitler he didn't have a religion to rely on and say it's god's will. this is an ideology that's been in war with humanity for 1400 years and we have to speak about

it openly and honestly and i think even muslims, the good and peace loving muslims, should join us, because they also, they need to see the reality, and if possible to reform their religion, but by appeasing the situation and not wanting to mention it and we keep getting hit and terrorized and our men and women are being killed and airplanes are flying into buildings, and 13 years later we can't name them? something's wrong here. this is not america and we have to start speaking out. so this is a war you have to understand that has been imposed on us by the jihadists and it is our duty to call them by name, and no appeasement.

we have to call them by -- i'm not saying go bomb muslims. of course not. but we have to identify our enemy, and when we remove any reference in 9/11 memorial in new york any reference from the word "islam" or "jihad," what does that mean? it means terrorism worked on us. terrorism works, ladies and gentlemen. it doesn't only work on individuals. terrorism affects the psyche of whole nations. it makes them elect the wrong people. it makes -- [applause]

whole nations can fall into the stockholm syndrome. it's not just one person, a person who was taken hostage like patricia hearst. no. whole nations. this can be a syndrome that happens and i am seeing this in america. america is totally divided against itself. half of america wants to know the truth. and half of america is in denial. and they're fighting each other instead of looking at the enemy that wants to destroy us. this is not healthy. and so what have we done since 9/11? we have hired muslim brotherhoodicism -- sympathizers in our government. we didn't hire muslims who are

rebelling against sharia. we are hiring in the white house, in homeland security, and in several of our top government even mohammad elbiari, he's a senior homeland security official. he's a muslim and he tweeted something after egypt had its counter revolution the muslim brotherhood. he tweeted statements -- this is a man who is a leader in our homeland security, represents america to egypt, in the egyptian mind, he represents america. and this is what he tweeted. so he was supporting the muslim brotherhood against the people who took the muslim brotherhood out and he was against the more secular government -- and i'm

not saying military rule is good but they are the only ones who can stand up to the tyrants. the only people in an islamic state that can stand up to the humaney style regime or saudi style regime, only one regime that can stand up to them and it's the military and this man was criticizing the people who took out the muslim brotherhood and he was critical of the christian minority in egypt that's being slaughtered in egypt today. the message to egypt was america is against our freedom. their people are supporting the muslim brotherhood. that's the message. it has never happened in history. america was always on the side of people who are for freedom

and in the last few years we have been siding with the wrong people. and this is -- a very delicate situation. by the way, i'm not try to just criticize obama. mistakes happen. but what happened is obama has taken it to a totally new level totally new level. we have been trying to appease the terrorists in even previous organizations. we have fought on the side of kosovo against the serbs. on the side of muslims against the serbs. we have fought iraq against -- i mean, on behalf of kuwait, to liberate them from iraq.

we are killing our children to defend muslims. what has that gained us? and republican administration are doing it just like democratic. we should not go kill our children to defend muslims! it is about 54 islamic countries in the world. they are totally capable of defending themselves. [applause] you know, we are -- we don't know the consequences of when we interfere and help muslims, first of all, it doesn't work. they don't appreciate us. when we went to saudi arabia to defend saudi arabia from saddam, because saddam took kuwait and

he was moving into saudi arabia and he lit up all the oil the oil fields, he set them on fire. it took us america, a year and a half to put it out. it was causing an environmental problem, ok. do you know that when we were in saudi arabia, our military was considered by the saudis as infidel filth that is desecrating our land. they invite them to defend them, but they regard them as filth. they bombed the building with a lot of our servicemen who died. so really you have to understand that we are going to be infidels

in their eyes whether we do something good or bad. we are, in their eyes, infidels. as long as islam is radical, they will always look at non-muslims as infidels. just look at how they treat the jews and the christians in the middle east. just look at them and understand, do you know that the christians in egypt are trying to appease the muslims by any means because they're a minority by any means, and nothing works. they are kidnapping girls and force marrying them. they are burning their chumps, -- churches, they are killing the women. it's unbelievable. nothing works so i hope america gets the lesson. don't appease! it's not going to work! you can only defeat radical islam. so america has suffered trauma

after 9/11 and no one is discussing it. no one is looking after the average american citizen who loves his country and i'm very sad over that. we expect too much from the american citizens. it's us who always have to put up with the rest of the world. it's us who always have to be blamed but third world countries, you know, they are so poor and oppressed. you have no clue that tyranny can come from any nation. you can be the poorest nation on earth and be tyrannical so being a third world country does not make you immune to become that tyrant. there was a sheikh recently in egypt who stated the following "we are commanded by god to

terrorize and it's in our koran." if you check the word terrorize in the koran you find it all over. mohammad himself, he stated, "i have been victorious through terror." so you wonder why they're doing terrorism. it's in the koran. their ideology, their books are telling them that. that's why i'm not criticizing the people. i'm criticizing the books the sharia law because it's creating martyrs and this is what we have to deal with. if anybody comes to tell you oh, you're a racist because you criticizing islam, say, no, no, no, i'm not a racist, i'm not criticizing people, i'm criticizing the ideology. you have to be very firm and self confident that you are criticizing the ideology. there are white muslims, there

are black muslims there are everything in between so it has nothing to do with race. don't be intimidated by the words, you are racist. they call me racist, i'm racist against my race. they don't know how to deal with me, they eventually just call me a name. you're a racist. what does race have to do with what i'm saying? i want equality for everybody. i came to america, when i first -- my first job, i was -- as a new immigrant, i was reading everything. whenever i went to work, i read every note written on the wall, every map i see, i check, you know as a new immigrant and i saw a sign at my work on the wall. nobody ever -- i notice nobody looks at it, and it says the following. "this institution does not

discriminate in hiring on the basis of race, general origin, gender or race or anything." and i read it and re-read it and re-read it. to me, it was like, oh, my god, does that mean i'm equal to men? here i am, i'm coming from an area of the world where you have a totally different legal system for women, different from men. if you're a woman, your testimony in court is half the value of a man. can you believe this? so if i go to court and i am testifying and there's a man testifying and we contradict each other he wins because he's a man. that's the law. that is not the culture. that's the legal system. so when you come suddenly to america and you're confronted

that you're equal, it's almost like oh, my god, i'm equal? how do i deal with that? really, it took me a while for me to really feel equal. it's not easy when you're living in a prison. it's not easy to see the freedom right away. and that's why i'm speaking, because i love this country. i'm just very grateful for this country. it gave me my freedom. [applause] so ever since -- after 9/11 happened, a lot of americans remember, were saying, where are the voices of the middle eastern people to speak against jihad and to stand up to this terrorism? you know, and i was one of the first people who started speaking. so i started speaking and gradually i felt i'm being

silenced, i'm being shut up, and at the end now they call me controversy, they call me islama phobe and racist. here i am, i'm being invited on college champs -- campuses to speak and i used to speak every semester six seven times and especially during the time when there is israel apartheid week. every year there's an attack on israel on campuses and it's an anti-semitic week, really. and the jewish kids are intimidated. if there was no israel apartheid week i don't care to go but there has to be some balance so they invite me to speak and they are desperate he -- to hear my message and my message is very reasonable, by the way. i'm not attacking people, like i said, i'm attacking the ideology so now no you can't come.

so anti-israel groups have all the right to speak on college campuses, nobody's bothering them and pro-israel people are silenced and being called names so here i am after 9/11, after the ask, where are the middle eastern people in america to speak against radical islam and now we're being silenced. we're not politically correct. so this is a very strange situation, for a country to reject or stand against people who are speaking about their enemy. i don't know if it ever happened in history. i have -- you know, i study a lot of history. i don't remember any nation that made it taboo to speak about an

enemy that's actually declaring war against that nation. it's very strange. it's like a stockholm syndrome. and we are now very compliant very appeasing and we are -- is it any coincidence, is it any coincidence that first election -- and i'm not a psychology, by the way i took a few classes of psychology in -- at my university. you don't need a psychiatrist really to understand, is it a coincidence that the first -- first person to elect as president after 9/11, his name rhymes with osama? is this a freudian thing. really, this is something that

we have to think about. why are we doing this? so we are defending the culture that flew airplanes into our buildings. now, this is what america's doing. and we are preventing our -- you know discussing it even in our homeland security, calling anything related islam. and now we need to confront and understand what -- what is islam, what does it do to a nation? what does islam -- why is it so dangerous? what does it do to a nation? and i'll give you an example. 1400 years ago in the seventh

century, there were two superstars in the world and they were not the united states and the soviet union. they were the byzantine empire and persian empire. egypt was part of the byzantine empire. egypt was a christian nation. egypt used to have queens not just one or two many queens. not just cleopatra. we had nefertiti we had hatsupsu, the most brilliant one. she ruled and she had slaves, slaves all over. egypt had one of the two countries that had slaves. and persian empire and byzantine empire were fighting, having 10-year wars between them. and the people started hating their leadership.

and there comes out of the arabian peninsula a fresh army. they had a sword in one hand and the koran in the other hand and they were looking at these civilizations that had rivers, that had gold, that had beautiful women, and they wanted to conquer them, they wanted to conquer jerusalem to end the memory of the jewish people. they conquered egypt and persia in the same year, the year 639. egypt's language was changed to arabic by a culture that we look down upon, the arabian -- nobody wanted to conquer arabia. had nothing. it was a desert. they wanted to conquer us because we had the rivers, we had the wealth, we had the gold we had the agriculture.

so they came and conquered persia and egypt and their wealth changed our religion and imposed a tax on anyone who practices anything other than islam, and all the money went to arabia. egypt never saw its glory days again. and today egypt is like a third world country that cannot even rule itself. egypt has undergone a 1919 revolution a 1952 revolution, a 2011 revolution, a 2013 counter-revolution and there is still talk about another revolution. is this what you isn't can happen to superpowers, ladies

and gentlemen. islam, when they penetrate a country, because it's not -- it's a dysfunctional system. it oppresses human nature. it causes chaos. it has a very oppressive legal system, culture. called sharia. i want to name you a few of the laws of sharia so you can judge for yourself the impact of the laws on society. the laws that humiliate women and beat women and kill women and stone women for sexual misconduct, put aside all of that. i'm sure you know that part. i'm going to give you a law under sharia that you will -- i'm sure you've hardly heard it and it's as follows. it's regarding government. it says the following. "a muslim has a fate can come to

power through seizure of power meaning through force." can you believe it, if you have a law like that in your constitution? an american head of state can come to power through seizure of power, meaning through force revolution assassination, coup d'etat against the government and everybody cheers for them. hello, it's the new president. good! let's assassinate the old president. it's legal under islamic law legal if the president is not enforcing sharia pick-up -- 100%. what does a law like that do? it makes a muslim head of state paranoid at the least. he surrounds himself with lots of guards and he starts to rule with an iron fist. is it a coincidence while all

muslim countries have tyrants? it's not because everybody loves tyrants in the middle east, that's why they have tyrants? it's not because their nature is so bad. actually some of the men who've led in the middle east really deep down inside them they're good people but if they don't become tyrants, they will be assassinated. it all goes back to sharia law. and they want to bring sharia law in america. i'm just giving you one law that makes a nation unable to rule itself in peace. i'll give you another law that will never make a nation live in peace. it's the obligation of every muslim to do jihad, and this is the definition of jihad. according to their books, by the way, everything i'm saying is

from their books. it's not like from weird book somewhere. no no, this is mainstream islamic sharia books. here it says every muslim must do jihad and not only every muslim individual but every muslim head of state must do jihad against neighboring non-muslim countries. what is the consequence of a law like that. israel can never live in peace because it's surrounded by nations ruled by dictators afraid to be assassinated if they don't follow sharia and sharia tells them you have to do jihad against non-muslim countries, which is the closest non-muslim country in the middle east? israel. that's why we have an arab-israeli conflict. if the west just understand what sharia is, they will understand who's the victim and who's the

oppressor in the middle east. they will understand the arab-israeli conflict but west doesn't want to understand because we have an idea in the west that religion must be protected. we have to protect religion. anybody who says this is my religion, we have to give them all the rights, even if the religion has a law in it that if a person leaves that religion they must be killed. why is it that i cannot visit any muslim country? because i'll be killed on the street by anybody and the police will say, we never saw who killed her. this is happening every day in the middle east to christians who are being killed and nobody knows who killed them. nobody's in jail for the murder of christians in egypt ora -- apostates.

in sudan a more radical country than egypt, it's not just people on the street who will kill an apostate. no the government actually arrests you and puts you on trial and condemns you to death. even if you're a pregnant woman like what's happening there. did you hear about this? ok. and according to mohammad, one time he did condemn a woman in the seventh century to death but she was pregnant and he said ok we have to wait until she delivers and then we kill her and they killed her after the baby was weened so they're following exactly what's in their books so the problem is not the people it's what's in their books and we have to stand up and say, what's written in your books is barbaric. when you condemn a whole group of people called jews, call them

enemies of allah, that's barbaric. they are doing that and what happens because the jews rejected mohammad, they didn't want to convert to islam and they were living in medina with him so he actually participated in killing almost 900 jewish men of one tribe. they beheaded these men. the first holocaust on the jews is not hitler. it was mohammad. and he expelled the rest of the tribes and then he took all the women as sexual hostages. does that remind you of what's happening in uganda now? uganda the 300 young girls. nigeria. they're killing they're -- the same thing. it's under islamic law, sharia if you're in a world with

non-muslims, you have the right to take the women as sexual slaves and there are people in the middle east today who are advocating you have to do this in the open. by the way some muslim women in london with their head completely covered, only their eyes, are carrying signs that what's happening -- what happens in nigeria is ok. hallelujah they've converted 300 christian girls, hal hallelujah, they're saying. it doesn't matter how they convert them -- kidnap them, kidnapping minors and force marrying them, hallelujah! that is the value system that's totally contradictory from our value system. i don't -- what just scares me and i don't understand is why

liberals who are supposed to be the holders of the feminist movement and freedom and democracy and let's burn our bras, ok where are they? come defend me, i'm under attack the difference between the judeo christian culture and the islamic culture is huge. it's the opposite exactly. christians and judeo system concentrates on wanting to change yourself from within. and i didn't know that. when i was a muslim, i was an anti-semite. i didn't know better. that's how i was brought up. i came here and went to a synagogue with a girlfriend of mine and i said, ok, i'm going

to hear them. of course, muslims we curse them in the mosque, you know. that's what i thought, i thought everybody curses in churches and synagogues, they must be cursing muslims like we curse them so i sat there and my jaw dropped. they were praying for everybody for all of humanity and i'm like, oh my god, that's so different. and they were constantly in the synagogue and the churches, constantly talking about how to fix yourself. we're all sinners, that's what they say in churches all the time. we're all sirns. what a concept because in my religion of origin, they are all sinners. we are muslim. and we have -- in order to go to heaven. that's the difference between

christianity and judaism and islam. christianity and judaism wants to change yourself, make yourself a better person, put the penalty -- responsibility on you. muslim is consumed with changing the other and self criticism is a crime. is this enough to make you understand? how much do i give you information to make you -- for instance the name abdullah is the most popular islamic name. abdullah is slave of god. the way we look at god in islam we're slaves, he is god. in christianity, we're children of god. what a concept. big difference. forgiveness is so important in the bible, both the jewish bible and the christian bible.

forgiveness is so important and the seven deadly sins, they discuss fixing yourself and if all of society fixes itself, we're ok. this is basic psychology even. basic decency. let alone religion. but in islam, muslim are forbidden from forgiving their enemies of allah. they are forbidden from forgiving jews. i was invited on arabic tv to discuss my book and what happened, they told me, your father was killed by israel and you're a traitor, you're not worthy of being his daughter, you, i mean, i was insulted bad and harassed because you forgave the people that killed him. i said, forgiveness is the best thing we can do and we should forgive them and they should

forgive us. and honest to god, the guy almost -- wanted to kill me because he couldn't understand the concept of forgiveness. you can forgive your muslim friends but you can't forgive non-muslims. it's against islamic culture. islamic ideology, and that's why it's very hard for a muslim to to truly, to truly be a good muslim and be really want to live truly in peace with the jews. it's an oxymoron and it goes back to why mohammad killed them. the minute muslims make peace with the jews and consider them not as pigs and enemies of allah like mohammad stated in the koran. if they -- if they eventually finally admit that they're human

beings, by the way, oh, my god they're human beings, they're not enemies of allah? then if we admit that then our prophet was a murderer when he killed them. it's an existential problem for islam so they hate education. and islam doesn't have the confidence in themselves to stop the hate. actually, islam, they were discussing in egypt recently the punishment, you know, killing apostates and some young people in egypt were saying we shouldn't force people to convert to islam. we should leave it optional. and there comes one of the top leaders of islam and he addressed this. his name is kawhri, he is number

one in islam and he said and the clip is on youtube, if we end the capital punishment for those who leave islam, islam will end. can you believe this? it's like the pope, for christianity, like the pope, making a statement, if we don't kill catholics who leave catholicism, then catholicism will end. they have no confidence in their own religion. why should we have confidence in it ourselves? we shouldn't have confidence in it. we shouldn't give it the respect. those are people who don't accept forgiveness, redemption. want the only way under islam to go to shevin -- 7 is is -- heaven is to kill non-muslims in the

jihad. my father was killed in the jihad against israel. i was only 8. i remember until today, i was broken hearded really. people came and said, congratulations your father now is in heaven. it's the only guarantee to go to heaven is to die in the process of killing non-muslims and he was killing jews. what an honor! and with my 8-year-old mind, i was -- i told myself, i don't want my dad in heaven, i want him down here with us and i was looked at with such disrespect, like, aren't you a muslim? aren't you a good muslim? so i learned to keep it to myself. i should never criticize jihad. that was the message. and that's why i remember it until today.

so islam seeks to control people by not allowing them to leave islam, through a death penalty. the difference is huge between the judeo christian culture which produces a stable society, because there's harmony and trust between people because everybody's responsible for themselves. islam is -- everybody's responsible for everybody else except themselves. and it reduces a society that lives in constant chaos because everybody thinks they're the boss of everybody else. a girl has a boyfriend, her father goes to kill her. you know why her father goes to -- her brother, because he can't show his face to the society anymore. they will shame him to death. society's very cruel on men, too, it's not justnot just women,

in islamic society. they forced the father to kill. have you ever seen the movie the stoning of soriah? do you remember who threw the first stone? the father. they gave the father the first known to stone his daughter. and her son and then the rest of the village. they forced the men to deny their humanity. to kill their women. in order to save face and live with some little pride. islamic culture is cruel on men as much as it is cruel on women. just in a different way. islam, wherever it goes, seeks government control. they are already in our government.

christianity and judaism -- judaism doesn't even want to spread itself outside of the jewish people. christianity tries to spread itself through reaching the hearts and minds of people. by knocking at their door and showing them the bible. islam doesn't want to waste that time. islam forces itself through government on the people. that is why they seek government right away, wherever they go. i want to give you an example of the history of islam. am i too long? a few more minutes. i want to tell you a story. if you look at the history of islam in the last 1400 years you will see islam conquering countries through controlling the government and forcing itself on the people by making

it illegal to leave. being a muslim is not a personal relationship with god. being a muslim is a contract with the state. when i was born, my birth certificate was stamped muslim. my student id muslim. my passport muslim. because if i am caught in the country in a church, i could be killed. you're being a muslim is not a relationship with god. in saudi arabia, if you are an owner and it is time to pray and you don't go to pray, the police can arrest you. so you're being a muslim is really a contract with the state that you cannot violate.

this is a very different concept of god. and that is how islam expanded. when it went to india, eventually, muslims were the minority and they finally said we want to have our own country. we want to practice sharia law and the rest of the hindu said we don't want you to practice sharia law. they took an area of india called pakistan. did they and their? -- end there? no. pakistan hates india and they are terrorizing india all the time. it is never-ending. some muslims during the turkish empire go to eastern europe and they are majority muslim. why is there a war between the

serbs and kosovo? is the same thing whether it is india and egypt, kosovo -- chechnya during the ottoman empire, also some muslims lived in certain areas of russia and became strong enough. they want a separatist movement from russia today. they are constantly bombing schools. killing 200 babies. they go to theaters and blowup theaters. they blowup something every now and then in russia. the chechnya ends. ladies and gentlemen, i am predicting we will have a chechnya in france. we will have a chechnya in the united kingdom and if we don't do something today, we can have a chechnya and america.

are we going to allow our grandchildren to fight the war we should fight today? are we going to let them fight from door to door in school to school and restaurant to restaurant our grandchildren and maybe our children? after we are all gone? this is my question. we are not even doing muslims of favor with appeasement. muslims are human beings. they want to live happy. most of them. but we are telling them their religion is ok. they terrorize us and it's ok, we are not racist and we're sorry. what is this? we have to say it like it is. you terrorize me, i terrorize you. but we are not doing that.

and let me tell you, arabs respect power. we are showing them weakness and we are not even doing islam or muslims of favor. and we are allowing the muslim brotherhood to penetrate us. there is a law that president obama recently made it easier for asylum-seekers from the middle east to come here even if they have a little bit of a linked to terror groups. did you hear about that law? they did it unilaterally and i think this is designed, on purpose, for muslim other brother -- other muslim brotherhood escaping egypt today because they are illegal now. what are we doing? we are absorbing the terrorists and the muslim brotherhood in america. look at the middle east.

this is just a joke, but i am telling you that sometimes what we are doing is really -- for someone like me that lived in islamic terror, it scared the hell out of me w especially when i saw president obama in the rose garden. with the father of that man. he went awol and brings the life. do you know what that word means? it means i am a muslim. it is the first word in the islamic higher. -- any islamic prayer.

these are the first words, five times a day, muslims say this at the beginning of their prayer before they curse. i cannot imagine bush. only obama can be a fool like that. but he's not a fool. i think he is doing it on purpose and i think he is rubbing their noses of american people in that islamic wrong. thank you very much. [applause]

>> we will start your questions. you have some already active >> are you able to hear me ok? >> yes. >> westerns will come from over here. we will hand out cards to people and people will write their questions down and we will bring them over here. i do have a couple questions to start us off. if islam gave up hating all non-muslims, what would the essence of islam be? >> where are you? what is the question? >> if islam gave up hating all non-muslims, what would the essence of islam be? >> it would be an empty shell because 64% of the carranza is cursing non-muslims. 64% of the carranzkoran is consumed with other religions.

they are obsessed with the outside world and if you remove that from the ritual, you're left with prayer five times a day and ramadan. and just a few rituals which will make islam, no matter what become christian. >> how do we win against islam? >> standing up to our morals and values, by knowing we are strong. and by taking pride in our culture again. taking pride in the truth. standing up for the truth. ending appeasement and political correctness. i am not saying to be blunt and rude, but standing up for our principles. >> the islamic immunity

expresses outrage and is quick to mobilize and demonstrate when they feel their religion or culture has in this respected. where is the outrage when acts of terrorism are performed by islamic extremists? >> that is a very good question. where are the moderate muslims to object to the kidnapping of 300 girls? i do not see them in the street. all we saw was some muslim women in london saying this was good. and where are the moderate muslims? there is a little statement on the internet. we condemn the kidnapping of 300 girls. that's all we do. but you don't see them demonstrate and burn and kill. there was a cartoon. her member when the cartoon happened about mohammed in europe?

they were demonstrating all over the middle east. burning and killing. if they are really moderate, which i hope they are how come they are not -- i don't want them to burn and kill, but why don't they say, release those 300 girls? i can only see jews and christians who care. i don't see muslims. moderate muslims are not speaking. >> we're getting a lot of questions from the audience. is there any viable movement in any middle eastern country with a realistic chance of creating a non-theocratic democracy? >> there are movements but they are such a minority that they get swallowed by islamists eventually. in egypt in 2011, it was started by students.

but the students were in the thousands. egypt is 80 million. the minute it happened and succeeded, they got the vote. the same thing in gaza. they vote and thomas because of the majority of people, that is all they know. all they know is islam. you're living in a system that forbids anybody from even looking at the bible. if you go to saudi arabia, you get -- we will confiscate it. we are living as muslims in the muslim world unable to know if there is any god other than a laallah. when they go to vote, they say, i will vote for the religion of a allah.

islam thrives with ignorance. >> [indiscernible] >> they don't treat it. when i was a muslim, i never really cared to read the c thee koran. i defended them like they were victims. but now i look back. my god, it is not the truth. arabs don't want peace. they don't want peace and that is the truth. the reason is because they don't treat it. they don't treat the hate speech in the carranzkoran.

>> a couple questions may be complementary and one may answer the other. how do you balance religious freedom against the desire to take over the world? given your description of what islam is and does, how can it be considered a religion? >> that is a very good question. i think we should define what a religion should be. and i will tell you what my definition will be. a religion will be given respect in america to be practiced only if it respects basic human rights. [applause] we have to define religion. if we define religion as a set of values and morals if a religion condemns those that leave it to death its right to be practiced in america will be know and avoid.

and that is the only way we can get rid of that. and we can judge islam by the way muslims practice in america. we have to judge islam by how it is being practiced in iran and saudi arabia. because wherever it is a majority, it is different. when they are in the minority, even in the koran -- lie and slander and act like you like peace. you are dealing with a religion that teaches that lying is a virtue. >> islamists are notoriously hostile for people that renounce their ideology. you must be a real foreign their side. have you personally experienced violence or threats? >>