. >> my name is stephen davis. let's introduce another element into this equation. visiting the iaea web site today, they have an eight-minute introductory film. one of the commentators was henry kissinger who said, if we are standing with the podium with 20,000 nuclear weapons under our feet, it's very difficult to ask another nation not to develop one. if we are going to be serious about a nuclear-free world, do we not have to be serious about disarming ourselves? >> look, i think ultimately the nuclear none proliferation committee has reciprocal commitments. and states like the united states and the soviet union and others that signed the treaty initially as nuclear states, they have an obligation to move towards disarmament. i think actually the obama administration shares the view that there are obligations on both sides, which is why they moved aggressive forward on new start, which was not an insignificant political risk. i think matt thinks some of those cuts go through too deep but i don't know if that's true or not. but in any case, i think the administrat

. >> my name is stephen davis. let's introduce another element into this equation. i was visiting the iaea website today and they have an introductory film. one of the commentators was henry kissinger, who said, if we are standing at the podium with 20,000 nuclear weapons under our feet, it is very difficult to ask another nation not to develop one. about a nuclear-free world, do we not have to be serious about disarming ourselves? >> i think, ultimately, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has commitments. we're committed -- places like iran are committed not to develop nuclear weapons. the united states and others, initially nuclear states, have an obligation to move toward disarmament. the obama administration shares the view that their obligations on both sides. the move forward on new start. not an insignificant political risk. it is thought that some of those cuts go too deep. i don't know if that is true or not. the administration believes that we also have to make good- faith efforts to shrink our arsenal. it does not excuse iran pose a commitment. sometime

. >> my name is stephen davis. let's introduce another element into this equation. i was visiting the iaea website today and they have an introductory film. one of the commentators was henry kissinger, who said, if we are standing at the podium with 20,000 nuclear weapons under our feet, it is very difficult to ask another nation not to develop one. if we are going to be serious about a nuclear-free world, do we not have to be serious about disarming ourselves? >> i think, ultimately, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has commitments. places liketed -- iran are committed not to develop nuclear weapons. the united states and others, initially nuclear states, have an obligation to move toward disarmament. the obama administration shares the view that their obligations on both sides. the move forward on new start. not an insignificant political risk. it is thought that some of those cuts go too deep. i don't know if that is true or not. the administration believes that we also have to make good-faith efforts to shrink our arsenal. it does not excuse iran pose a comm

. >> my name is stephen davis. visiting be iaea website today, they have an eight minute introductory film. one of the commentators was henry kissinger. he said, if we are standing at the podium with 20,000 nuclear weapons under our feet, it is very difficult to ask another nation not to develop one. if we are going to be serious about a nuclear-free world, do we not have to be serious about this -- disarming ourselves? ultimately, the non- proliferation treaty is reciprocal. state says it will not will not. states like the u.s. have an obligation to move towards disarmament. the obama administration shares the view that their obligations -- there are obligations on both sides. that is why they took risks. some of the cuts go too deep, that's what matt things. -- thanks. the administration believes we have to make efforts to start to shrink our arsenal. it does not excuse iran's commitment. a lot of people ask, do they not have the right to have nuclear weapons? they give up their right to have nuclear weapons when

have to remind people jefferson davis -- because of stephen douglas the democratic party fought the war. the list of the union cause and republican. the union is in large part because of what stephen douglas did. very seldom in terms of saying i can't get elected and my job is still being in together. he is not appreciated for that. so you still have a democratic party. why have a liberal and conservative party? to get to the question and answers. democratic party as i mentioned is the party that did not like the government. has been that way the entire nineteenth century and in one election they change because of william jennings bryan. this shows you how politics can be extremely unpredictable. he served two terms in congress and was out of office for two years. only 36 years old. he was known as a brilliant orator traveling the united states giving speeches. at this point we're talking where people were suffering and wanted government to start regulating railroads and financial interests and providing relief to the terrible depression that was hitting the country. he knew this. he sa

stephen: right. like all critics of higher education, rick subscribes to the same west coast newspaper i do. it's the "something from the state of california news." (laughter) oh, what do you know? at u.c. davis you get an "f" if you're not gaye. hmm. (laughter) that's a shocking infographic. okay, fine. so maybe nine out of ten schools in the u.c. system not only teach american history but require their students to take it. but all that means is rick was a little off with his math. but if his continued campaign has proven anything, it's that he does not care about math. (laughter) besides, the basic message was right. there is one school in the u.c. system that does not offer a course in u.s. history. u.c. san francisco. surprise, surprise. and what's their excuse? they're a medical school. (laughter) oh, really? (cheers and applause) it's just more haight-ashbury elitists trying to push u.s. history out of our medicine. that means these so-called doctors aren't going to have a clue how to whittle george washington's wooden teeth or prescribe the tincture of mercury that cured ben franklin's syphilis. i certainly hope when rick santorum moves on to the california primary june 5 he does not g

confederate government command as the opposition to jefferson davis became greater and greater, by 1864 you had people like robert toombs and alexander stephens, where are our softer millenniums? we have one here earlier. he left. damn good thing, too. they've got a lot to answer for down there. began to call for his removal from office. preferably by constitutional means of south carolina had the notion that they should impeach davis or remove him from office and persuade stevens to agree not to succeed davis as president which constitutionally he was eligible to because stevens was on sound. he had been opposed to secession. they needed somebody there was more sound event stevan and was to install robert e. lee as dictator. i don't know if he was never approached about this, but certainly he would have never counted such an idea. there were others who called for more extreme. robert toombs, never a 10-foot man. actually set of december, 1864 the jefferson davis must be removed or killed or the confederacy is going down the drain. i don't know that he was actually advocating assassination, but there was at least one assassination, and we do