Skip to main content

tv   2014 Eagle Forum Collegians Summit Part 2  CSPAN  July 27, 2014 2:03pm-4:06pm EDT

2:03 pm
author of "emily gets her gun" >> our next talk is emily miller and her talk is about emily miller gets her gun but obama takes your. she was senior editor at the washington time and a columnist at aol. she is a producer of abc news this week and good morning america. she served as deputy press secretary to the secretary of state powell and rice. she was community director to tom de lay. please welcome emily miller. [ applause ] >> thank you for having me.
2:04 pm
>> always hard to follow a big act but i think you can do it. >> i am talking about guns so i think i can do it. i am honored to be here and so honored to be present with all of you guys and ms. slosh is here in spirit and set an example for conservative woman. you can see myself holding my own gun on the cover of my book. but this month three years ago i had never shot a gun in my life or thought about shooting one. definitely had not about owning one. but what changed my perspective on this issue which is such a big issue in politics is personal. i was the victim of a crime. i was dog sitting for friends in washington, d.c. and those of you visiting or staying here for
2:05 pm
internships we have a lot of crime in washington, d.c. i was dog sitting and walked out of the house where i was taking the dog and closed the front door but didn't lock it. when i walked back inside there was a man in there robbing the house. and the police later said he was a drug addict. i confronted him and didn't get hurt but he stole my wallet. i thought i was going to follow him and get a picture to show the police. i chased him down the street with at the time my blackberry and found him around the corner standing outside with 15 other men, two pickup trucks in the street and they see me. and one of them started running at me. i turned and ran back as fast as i could back in the house terrified and called the police. they came and dusted for finger
2:06 pm
prints and explained this was a common thing in washington, d.c. where drug dealers from virginia, because i did catch a license plate, come into washington, d.c. and get drugs and on the way out try to hit up houses and get cash and that is what where walked into. by the grace of god i wasn't hurt and they didn't do anything. but going to bed that night i was terrified what if they get back in, what if this happens again, what if god forbid they are surprised and they do act out and you just don't know. it was the first time in my life i thought if i had a gun i would have a chance to defend myself. but i was just lying there and instead since i didn't have a gun i took my friend's dresser and barricaded myself in the room. the next day i thought i want
2:07 pm
today get a gun to defend myself. i said i am going to get a gun in washington, d.c. and i heard it was difficult so how about a write for the paper. washington, d.c. has gun control laws that nowhere else in the nation exist. and until the 30-year ban of ownership on bans was overturned and even after the supreme court act they put together all of these gun control laws. so i started going through it and had to take a written test and a class. and this is just to own a gun just to be clear. it ended up, what i thought would take two weeks took four months and it was 17 steps and that was to buy legally one gun i am not allowed to take out of
2:08 pm
the house. i hear smirks and i bet you are from the west and south. and those not reacting are from the northeast. when i say it took 17 steps and four months to keep one gun at home people are like i don't get it. it is so hard in the blue states to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. whereasif you go across the bridge to virginia which is a mile away, you walk into a gun store and you are not a felon, mentally ill, drug addict, you pass a background check there and you walk out and you can have the gun and defend your family. so that is what i decided to write this book because soon
2:09 pm
after i -- three years ago never shot or owned a gun and i went through this and saw what gun laws do. and very soon after that we had two factors coming to bear. one was president obama was reelected and he is anti-gun and strong gun control openly so before even in his state house control. and the second horrific thing was the terrible newtown children with 8 teachers and 20 children were killed by a homicidal maniac. i think everybody was distraught over the innocent children and teachers killed. but what president obama did and what is different than any gun control effort you have seen in the last 20-30 years is he has mike bloomberg's money behind
2:10 pm
him. the former mayor of new york is spending tens of millions of dollars and supporting obama to push for gun control law and using newtown as their political reason; exploiting it, in my opinion, to push for gun control laws. you saw this media coverage of the push for gun control law that started after the newtown tragedy and where saw a lot of the media, which i am part of, using emotion as opposed to facts in their coverage. wall to wall coverage of gun control but you don't hear facts. i want to read a bit from my book and this is the chapter on media distortion. this is on the media is largely to blame for misconceptions about gun control. and there are two main reasons for the distortion. if it bleeds it leads.
2:11 pm
newscast starting newscast about violence crime victims and that applies to the national news now. the sandy hook massacre was horrific because it was innocent school children. but it was a rare event. not an event that increased mass shooting. but the media went wall to wall with coverage for weeks. and then obama used this terrible crime to bring back the so-called assault weapons ban. but the media distortion goes beyond the facts that shooting and deaths boost ratings. few gun owners have any familiar with firearms and as a result they are making mistakes about simple gun terminology.
2:12 pm
the whitehouse released a photo of obama ski shooting. many people incorrectly labelled the gun a rifle instead of a shotgun. a rifle shoot as single bullet straight while a shotgun fires and has many pellets that shatter. skeet shooting is what obama claimed to do all of the time is done with a shotgun in order to have a chance to hit small fast-hitting clays. rifles are what they are going after with the assault rifle ban. almost every newspaper uses the term assault weapon. they don't use quotes. high capacity magazine and those are not technical.
2:13 pm
stockpile, arsenal, weapons of war are used for the average gun owner. a new york times editorial in july 2012 entitled 6,000 bullets are not monitored by the government. the astonishing 30,000 round that the colorado shooter bought online and asked should it be scrutinized. they didn't realize an average shooter can go over a thousand round at the shooting range in a weekend so it is perfectly normal to order a large amount. i went to my closet to see how
2:14 pm
much i had in my home. i had 1500 rounds in boxes and probably a little less since writing this. it takes up as much space as my tivo. so that is a section on media distortion. i wanted to get out the facts and there is many facts you will read but the three most important and that is what i hope you will take away and that is distorted about gun control law. number one, no gun control law has ever reduced a crime. so when you hear about common sense gun control laws tell me one that has reduced crime. the center for disease control, an anti-gun agency, did a study for two years doesn't reduce
2:15 pm
crime. h h harvard university couldn't find any. and number two, there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. so when people say we need to have less guns why? there the more civilian ownership of guns than at any othertume in history. half of american homes have a gun in their home. however, gun control and gun crime has gone down every year in 20 years to the fact gun murders are down 50%, half, in 20 years. and people that don't die it is down 75%. so it is not accurate to say more guns lead to more crime. however, the peta organization
2:16 pm
pulled this question do you think think gun crime is up or down or the same and asked about time periods. 9-10 americans said gun murders and killings are up. so 1-10 people in the country know that numbers are down. and why is that? because people don't have the basic facts. and the third major fact, the 1st is no gun control law has reduced crime and second is there is no connection between high gun ownership and gun crime. and mass shootings is the third one and they have not increased. you have seen more coverage of them but they have not increased. there was a study of four years of mass shooting, four or more
2:17 pm
people killed in a pub alling space, and it estimates to about 34 people a year. it is not increasing. it is
2:18 pm
>> let's take knowss on this. we have one. peter down here. >> hi, i am from texas. and you were talking about second amendment rights and all of that. my dad and i go shooting almost
2:19 pm
every other weekend together. >> at a range or outside? >> we have a friend who lives outside of city property and we go shoot clay and they have a rifle range. >> fun. >> there is a gun act that came up that is set to ban semi-automatic weapon which is as type of rifle i have been shooting since i was four. and i was just wondering your thoughts on the issue and whether that is actually something that could be passed in the coming years. >> no, of course there is a lot of language and semi-automatic and i would not have known this three years ago. that is what we all have except for revolver. it means you pull the trigger once and it fires one shot. i don't want to get too far in the weeds on this. but you hear in the media and he
2:20 pm
has a semi-automatic gun and it is like what else is there? i don't know what else you would have? the opposite is fully-automatic and the military and police have those. you pull the trigger and it fires forever. and you use that in war to suppress fire. with a special permit you can go through atf to get one. they are never used in crimes. but that doesn't stop the president from we have to get semi-automatic -- i mean fully automatic weapons off the street. and he corrected himself. semi-automatic is a term for people that understand firearms is in ocious but it is used
2:21 pm
incorrectly by people. i don't see how that could pass and if it did it would get to the supreme court and be bumped out. >> avery has a question. >> i will be attending wheaten college in the fall. i was wondering if you could comment on the people saying the senged second amendment has outlived it's duty and because of that qualifier our right to build arms is not feasible and outlived its day? >> former justice stevens said that recently. he said we need to a mend the
2:22 pm
ame amendment. i am not one to go around reading supreme court briefings but this one is interesting and easy to understand. they explain because people pushing for gun control laws things the guns are for militia but they explain and go through how it is written. they went back to the founding father's documents and what they were saying and their thinking was that they had just come out from under king george and the tyranny and wanted to make sure no government had that much power again and the deterant for that is having civilian ownership of crimes. we use it for self defense but that is the intend of the second amendment. i cannot see it ever getting through the senate but it would never get ratified by the
2:23 pm
states. >> there is a question in the back. >> hello, i am benjamin from michigan. it is easy to get a gun in michigan. but more specifically in our colleges, and lot of them across the count ry, it is hard to hav a gun with you. i know in michigan that you can have a gun anywhere but state law does allow campuses to prevent it which annoys me. can can you tell me how to change that? >> yeah, i hear this a lot. you have a concealed weapon but the campus says you can not have it. and people that are pro-gun or pro-second amendment say look what happened at virginia tech. you want to have a way to defend yourself.
2:24 pm
gun-free zones are the most dangerous. and look at auora -- he had eight movie theaters between his apartment and he went to the one that said no guns allowed. murders are crazy but not stupid. the fort hood shooting, the school shootings -- they are gun-free zones. so a lot of college campus kids are saying i don't want to live in a gun-free zone. but the flip side is people say kids are drinking and you cannot control that. obviously gun ownership number one is a huge responsibility. one that i don't take lightly and no one should. if you a gun owner you have to be responsibility at all times -- when it is on you, when
2:25 pm
it isn't locked, when it is locked, and you need to train regular regularly. washington, d.c. doesn't allow concealed carry. but the rest of you probably can. if you go through the background and training and you are being responsible i don't see why you should not be able to kerry it. >> how do you suggest we combat the disparity between bigger cities where there is no gun exposure versus small towns like my own where we bring our gun collections to church and show off to each other? >> it really is. i went on this book tour and i was in so many different places
2:26 pm
and the culture of america is so different when you talk about guns and urban settings that have so much gun control laws. and the thing about it is washington, d.c. has every gun control law that exist in the country and crime and murder is up. look at chicago 83 people shot. toughest gun control laws in the country. well new york is going up since they stopped stop and frisk. i cannot say for sure that gun control increases crime. a lot of people believe if there is no deturant to the bad guys and i do believe that but i cannot say it. they are not going to walk into a house and rob it. they could have robbed in virginia but you know the chances of someone in virginia having a gun?
2:27 pm
pretty good. chances in washington, d.c.? pretty slim. it is unbelievable the cultural differences and people that, i say, america understand that. >> in washington, d.c. if you are not allowed to take the gun out of the house how do you take to it the range? >> under federal law you can take a gun from somewhere where you can legally have on you at both places. >> so i can take it unloaded, locked, in a case. you hope you don't get mugged. kercarry >> i am kelly, i am from florida. and stand your ground law is controversial in the re. and i was wondering if you
2:28 pm
should speak about that and talk about if the media hyped it up. >> stand your ground law which florida initiated and started the first one. if you are confronted and your life is in danger, you don't have to back off. the criminal has to back off. because states were prosecuting people for attacking back to the criminal. it didn't apply in the case of zimmerman because he was physically under trayvon martin so it was self-defense. that is what the court and jury ruled was self-defense. but if you watch the media it was the stand your ground law. they are simple. if you are attacked you can fight back. you say of course, but it is
2:29 pm
like what florida put into law. if you are in your home and someone comes in i have the right to assume they are there to cause me great bodily harm or death and shoot. and that makes it legal. you don't have to be a victim and it has gotten a lot of misconception out there. >> any other questions? >> emily, thank you very much. >> [ applause ] >> we get a lunch break. we have a whole hour for lunch and come back with an exciting afternoon. >> we have a very exciting
2:30 pm
afternoon and he will lead off with andrew mccarthy who has written "faceless execution: building the political case for obama's impeachment" he is a best-selling author and editor at national review. he is a write for the new criterian. he was a chief assistant united states attorney in new york and best known for prosecuting terrorist involved in the 1993 world trade center bombing and served at super visor near ground zero after the 9/11 utah tacks. will full blindless. the grand jihad. and spring fever: the illusion of islamic democracy are some of his previous works.
2:31 pm
please welcome, andrew mccarthy. >> thank you for having me. it is great to be down at the heritage foundation because when i go around to talk about, particularly national security, it is usually a college setting so this is more like a home game for me. it is great to be here. as you might imagine i have gotten some flag over the book and over the subtitle. the subtitle is building the political case for obama's impeachment. so naturally the word everyone focuses on is impeachment.
2:32 pm
i have a part in the book where a congressional hearing happened and you have this position of progressive law professors called as witnesses and they are throwing the word impeachment around and cross the room. one of the law professors called the obama presidency the uber presidency saying it was the most significant constitutional crisis of his life time and said obama was the president that nixon always wanted to be. that was the tenor of what you were getting from the witnesses. and you had republican and conservative representatives, members of congress running the hearing, diving under their death every time the word impeachment was mentioned. one congressman who is a
2:33 pm
terrific congressman on most things said you cannot be afraid to say the word impeachment. it is one of the remedies to rein in lawlessness. if you are going to have a conversation about lawlessness you have to talk about impeachment
2:34 pm
2:35 pm
>> it was anything but clear how things would go. they understood that to create that kind of powerful office you had to create a great danger which is if the power fell into the corrupt hands that could destroy the republic. as a result they decided it was indispensable to have an impeachment remedy in the constitution. something that would give congress a real meaningful check on the possibility that the executive branch would fall into the wrong hands. wasn't the only check. there are three in the constitution. the first is the ballot box. and some of the framers thought that the fact that you could have elections coupled with the
2:36 pm
fact that because the president runs an ex cuteive branch and if you took the possibility you can prosecute the subordants coupled with the possibility the voters could vote the president out if he did anything bad enough to warrant it they thought an impeachment remedy wasn't necessary. that turned out to be a minority framer because people like madison pushed back and said a president who was apt to be corrupt would be most apt to be corrupt in getting himself reelected. so it would not be sufficient just to rely on the ballot box. there are two other remedies. one is impeachment and the second is the power of the purse. and that was the power the
2:37 pm
framers thought congress would most often rely on to check presidential lawlessness. the idea you put congress in charge of all expenditures of the public and the executive branch so that if the president exceeded this authority the congress could cutoff the money he was using to the agencies that exceeded his authority or if more was needed to punish the president in the sense of bringing him back into line you could slash the budget more much dramatically. but the idea would be the president had to look to the congress to the means to bring about his agenda and if he overstepped his bounds the congress would be able to crackdown on it with the power of the purse. and impeachment is the ultimate remedy and ability to remove somebody who was illsu suited f
2:38 pm
the position. when they discussed and debated it they were concerned there would be a clear legal standard for what is required to impeach and secondly it would be hard to do because they didn't want to be done frivolously or an exercise in hackry. they wanted to make sure if the president was to be removed there could be a concensus of people that would want the president out. so in order to take on clear legal standards and make it hard to do they did two things. first, as far as the standard is concerned, they adopted a british term of art at the time. high crimes and misdemeanors.
2:39 pm
people hear crimes and misdemeanors they think of the conventional offenses of the penal code like i used to deal with. but high crimes and misdemeanors can be violations of the penal law but the term means more than that. as hamilton put it he said it refers to the misconduct of public men and they are maintaining branches in high branch officials like the president. much more than a penal code the concept and more redolent of terms or concepts we find in the military code of justice. durilation of duty, violation of an oath -- the thing may were mainly concerned about was the president's obligation to uphold
2:40 pm
rather than undermine the framework of the constitution. the president is the only official in our government who is required by the constitution to take an oath to uphold that. to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and faithfully execute it. so the idea was a breach of those responsibilities and a breach of that public trust would qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor. you don't have to be indictable to be impeachable. a president who is dare lect in his duties as commander and chief has committed a high crime. a president who misleads congress has committed a high crime and misdemeanor. a president who defrauds the
2:41 pm
people of the united states commit as high crime and a misdemean misdemeanor. it takes in a lot of misconduct by a president so they wanted to make sure you parse the stuff that is significant in the way of misconduct from the things that were frivolous and not of great moment. the second condition they attached was the notion that in order to remove the president from power. the president can be impeached which is just an acsation but to remove the president from power requires a 2/3rds vote of the senate. that was done to make certain that if you did remove a president from power it would be
2:42 pm
because there is a broad concensus in the public it was appropriate. it would not be enough that one faction or political party wanted him out. it would have to be something that made the public convinced we could no longer abide having the power of the presidency in this particular individual whoever it was at the time. that was the two-part test. and what my book is about mine trying to explain that test and why it is important and why we have a stake in it. the second half of the bock attempts to plead articles of impeachment in the way a prosecutor pleads an indictment. i try to make it a bit more interesting. but the second half reads a little like the -- the first
2:43 pm
half gets you to thing thinking about the second half. and it tries to show why we all have a stake in this issue. we don't want to live in a republic where every time one party is in power the other is trying to figure out how to impeach the guy. we have had three episodes of impeachment and two formal that were unsuccessful and president nixon who resigned to stave off what seemed to be certain impeachment. you would not know that from living in our modern, very politicized era.
2:44 pm
between what happened in the clinton administration and is discussed during the bush administration and woe are seeing and talking about with the obama administration that impeachment seems to be in the air. we don't want that kind of society. the reason it is important for people to understand they will have a stake in is because president obama has attacked the framework of the country beginning with not executing the laws faithfully and the problem with that is the precedents he is setting with lawlessness is going to be available to every future president regardless of party. so if woe want to rerain a republic of laws, not men, if we want to remain a people that
2:45 pm
considers itself governed under the rule of law rather than s subjects of presidential whim. everybody benefits from cracking down on this stake. why don't i leave it at that? >> let's take questions. lincoln is ready. >> i am from st. louis, sir. i had a lot of friends, i guess you could say, on the far far right of things who as soon as obama was elected and he sent the executive orders and started talking about impeachment and doing away had him. how feasible is it we could go through a process that has never been brought to fruitition with
2:46 pm
president obama? is it as a fight that is worth fighting at this point? >> well, there is a couple different considerations in there. as you say, it has never been brought fully to fruition but let's talk about the time it almost was. richard nixon in november of 1972 was reelected with the second largest landslide in the history of politics. it greatly dwarfed president obama's victory in 2012 by millions of votes and percentage win in the electoral college. 20 months later he was gone. and that was because he could not survive politically ones the country was riveted to lawlessness on the part of the
2:47 pm
executive branch. very different role in the media in 1972. the media was day after day nixon's prosecutor. with president obama they have a more protective view on him. political conditions change. look at what happened to the president's popularity polls in the last few months. could you never impeach this president? is it a realistic possibility that even if the republicans were to take control of the senate in november that this president could be impeached? i doubt it. if the republicans win they will win with a margin of 1-2 votes in terms of seats and majority. you would still need 15-17 democrats to vote to remove the
2:48 pm
president and that means there would have to be massive public pressure and people would have to be so angry about something or everything about the obama presidency that it would light a fire to induce the democrats to vote. i think that unlikely. but i don't think that is point. people get way ahead of themselves if they say we have to go from doing nothing, which is what the opposition has done for the last five and a half years, to let's go impeach the president where there is not a political will for it. you would be motivated to crackdown on presidential lawlessness and you get the house to impeach him, the trial goes into the senate where obama wins decisively and the media spins it as as endorsement of
2:49 pm
the way he governs. so i think there is a big step to get from here to there. and the big step is create a climate where it is in the president's interest to be lawful. there is a lot of ways to do that including cutting the money and you can impeach subordant officials. you don't have to start with the president. you could start with say the irs. the point is to cultivate a climate of lawfullness. not impeach the president. >> hi, i am from georgia. thank you for being here. i was
2:50 pm
2:51 pm
ought to get, we have a problem and you write a bill that everybody knows watt the law is, and it gets keyed up to be signed or not signed by the president, then i think it is fair to say veto or sign it. the problem is some of the bills are in the thousands of pages. and they delegate so much authority to the executive branch they result in tens of thousands of pages of regulat n regulations. there is a lot in the bills we need and a lot that is suspect. so i think it is natural for a president to say look i am signing this because we need xyz but if it comes this part is an issue i think this is
2:52 pm
constitutional and i am not bound boy it. it is more of a reaction to something that is worse which is these ridiculously long laws. >> another question? >> you have not answered anything! what is his worse crime? >> well, i am of two minds with that. one as an old prosecutor i like to have a slam dunk case in the indictment. y you always want one count that is bullet proof and that is ferrule to execute the laws fai faithfully. he doesn't follow federal law.
2:53 pm
their defense is he is refining federal law. they never say executing it which is his obligation. and i lay out numerous instances where the president has failed to follow the law. even this obamacare law, his signature accomplishment, when i left new jersey this morning i think he amended it 36 times. the one that offends me the most and ought to be offensive to the country is the benghazi massacre which i don't consider that as a an event that happened on september 11, 2012. i take benghazi back to the war that the president started under false pretenses and without
2:54 pm
congression congressional authorization which was being held out by the united states because the regime was giving us intelligence on the jihad. i say under false pretenses because without congressional -- ...
2:55 pm
>> in the late spring. before, you know, a few months back. that leads you almost inevitably to september 11th where to this day we know that the president found out within the first few minutes of the attack that it was a terrorist attack and that americans were under siege. to this day, we don't have an accounting of where he was that night, what he did that night. we pretty much know he wasn't in the situation room which is where a president is supposed to be when he's directing operations against an enenemy that has americans under siege. but we do know no meaningful
2:56 pm
action was taken under circumstances where there was a terrorist attack against americans. and we also know that they started to get their story straight about what they were going to say about it at 10:00 at night. that's the first indication we get from the government that they're going to start blaming the video for what happened. at 10:00 when they were getting their story together, the two navy seals were still alive and fighting for their lives. and yet no action was taken to try to respond and rescue. that is followed by this preposterous story about how the video, the anti-muslim video, caused the attack. and the cherry on top of that fraud, as it were, is that they trump up a prosecution against the producer of the video which is held out to an american audience as additional proof that the video caused the massacre, and it's held out to muslim countries as evidence that the united states defers to sharia blasphemy standards.
2:57 pm
so i think the if you take the whole benghazi transaction there beginning to end, you get all the fraud, all the lawlessness, all the abuse of power and process that the obama administration's become notorious for. and i think it's that episode by itself tells you what kind of administration we have. >> thank you very much, kevin mccarthy. [applause] >> thank you. >> [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> well, our next speaker is ann coulter who is, her new book is called -- [laughter] "never trust a liberal over 30 be, especially a republican." ann coulter started out as a new york city lawyer then worked for the senate judiciary committee and as a litigator with the center for individual rights in washington d.c. now she's a syndicated columnist with universal press syndicate
2:58 pm
and the legal correspondent for human events. author of ten new york times best sellers and one of the most popular guests on fox, cnn, nbc, abc and hbo, it is a privilege and very special event to have her with us today. please welcome ann coulter. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> but i'm so happy, i finally get to meet you, anne. actually, i'm not that welcome of a guest on several of the stations you just mentioned. [laughter] things change. you really want to cement your career in tv, be sure to speak only in cliches and make bad arguments when you're on liberal tv. you'll be invited back over and over again. [laughter] i want to just start by saying things aren't as bad as they seem. [laughter] they seem pretty bad. it seems like we're in the middle of the democrats'
2:59 pm
thousand-year reich, but when i was as depressed as i've ever been in my life -- and i'm including my parents dying -- after obama, rather, won the second time beating romney, i was going through my here happened to have been, had the largest north american collection of clippings about ann coulter. so i was going through them -- [laughter] and i came across the "time" magazine that came out immediately after george bush won re-election in 2004 which should be of tremendous interest to this audience since you were all in kindergarten then. [laughter] so you probably don't have that issue. and it was the exact mirror opposite of what everyone was saying after this last election which is to say democrats are going to have to fold up shop, come back under a new name. they've lost five of the last seven presidential elections. the reason my mother had it was there's a huge, smiling picture of me, winner!
3:00 pm
sad picture of michael moore, loser. [laughter] so, you know, to read that magazine, it really sort of lifted my spirits to remember that the pendulum does change, but it take, it takes activists like you and people talking and writing and arguing to make things change. remember, obama -- well, he did win twice, but he has two characteristics that no other democrat has. thurm one, no record -- number one, no record. that's big. and likability. [laughter] on no record the history of democrats is they're always going down based on what they did with michael dukakis when you weren't even a twinkle in your father's eye. michael dukakis was willie horton. you remember john kerry throwing the medals over -- well, maybe you don't remember -- throwing his fake, not his, somebody
3:01 pm
else's medals over the white house lawn and sliming his fellow vietnam comrades. with obama it was perfect. they had a 14-year-old with no record. and he's very likable. [laughter] you have to admit it, he's the most charismatic person the democrats have run for president in hi lifetime. i hear president thought john f. kennedy was charismatic, but obama is definitely the best they've produced in my lifetime. i think the only people that you're going to have fainting at a hillary clinton rally will be the chubby gals from now who can't take the heat. [laughter] but americans just keep telling poller ises they really like obama -- pollsters they really like obama personally. you wish you could like his polices. obama would probably make a great next door neighbor unless you were chinese in which case
3:02 pm
he'd always be over borrowing something. [laughter] borrowing. but i think after the mess he's made for the past eight years, republicans have a pretty good chance this 2016 provided they run someone slightly better than todd aiken. [laughter] i think we have a very good chance. especially since they talk about a lot about obamacare. i've so far this year spent, i think i added it up, it was approximately one million hours trying to find a health care plan for myself. i'm self-employed, so i'm one of the few americans actually subjected to obamacare. and the entire time i was mumbling about my liberal friend who, unfortunately, is a hypochondriac and, therefore, wants the entire national budget spent on health care, and that is blogger mickey cause. you said it was going to be great. and the title of my column was, screw you, mickey. [laughter] i realized right as i was sending it out, i'd forgotten to
3:03 pm
mention to him that it was coming. [laughter] so i sent him an e-mail saying, oh, by the way, i mention you in my column this week. [laughter] he read the column, and he said, yeah, you make good points but what is so brilliant about this column you're going to have every liberal in the country poring through obamacare web pages to find a good plan for you now. but i e-mailed him back, and i was right, that's impossible. it is mathematically impossible for obamacare to fund the uninsured, to pay for everyone's smoking cessation programs and marital counseling and, you know, aroma therapy, hearing therapy, speech therapy and also pay for my cancer treatments. no, no, something has to go, and it's apparently the paying inyou arer denyish surers' cancer treatment. nancy pelosi said we have to
3:04 pm
pass obamacare to find out what's in it. okay, we found out. [laughter] and now we really don't like it. recall that obamacare became law not because the american people were clamoring for the federal government, please, please, take other our health care. no, it was because one party had 60 votes. the democrats always do this. the worst things that have been passed in american history are when because of some fluke this history -- in history, watergate, john mccain. they end up with an inordinately large majority, and suddenly, oh, they've got a to-do list. republicans never have a to-do list. george bush had a republican house and senate for, what, the first six years of his presidency. what did we get done? no, obamacare passed with one party sneering, that, that, we've got -- ha, ha, we've got 60 votes. the history of liberalism is passing things that sound good
3:05 pm
on paper to replace things that actually work. that work. americans kept saying really, really? do we have to replace our health care? but liberals explained, no, no, no, my roommate and i were both rhodes scholars, and we worked it all out on paper. so now our entire health care system is going to be run by the same people who run the department of motor vehicles. [laughter] you know? if you know those incredibly long lines, now imagine you're standing in one of those lines, but you're wearing a paper hospital gown, open in back. [laughter] that's obamacare. thank you, liberals. the democrats' only defense to this monstrosity, and you hear it all the time, is, well, republicans don't have a plan. what's their plan? tell he what your plan is? they don't have a plan. i have a plan. [laughter] i have a plan. it's a little something i've been working on. i call it free market capitalism. [laughter]
3:06 pm
my idea is we let individuals shop for health insurance on the free market. now, bear with me here, i know this sounds crazy -- [laughter] but the history of the world is everything provided on the free market gets better and cheaper over time. everything provided by the government gets worse and more expensive over time. government gave us the post office, public schools. that was one of my annoyances during the government shutdown. i kept seeing people on fox news no less saying, you know, when something is failing, you don't get in the way. well, no, the public school system has failed, and it's still with us. [laughter] you apparently have to kick up quite a fuss to get rid of crap ass government programs. social security, a ponzi scheme, you would be put in yale for doing -- jail for doing if you were in the private sector. earned income tax credits, the most flawed program in history,
3:07 pm
and that's saying something. oh, and my favorite, the amtrak food service, for those on the east coast, you're familiar with amtrak. it's a total monopoly. if you forgot to get food on the train, you just wait for the announcement you hope they're saying the food service car is open so you can go stand in line for 40 minutes and get a two week old turkey sandwich for $30. [laughter] last year amtrak food service alone lost $72 million. [laughter] how would you lose with a monopoly? only the government could do that. [laughter] note that, meanwhile, the private sector has given us ever-cheaper cell phone, cell phone service, flat screen tvs, jerry garcia chia pets. [laughter] every single part of commercial air travel has gotten vastly cheaper in my lifetime. the only part of commercial air travel that blows is the part run by the government.
3:08 pm
[laughter] the airport security. on the way down here, you know, i got the full patdown by a handsome tsa agent who i went through again. [laughter] consequently, my idea is -- and republicans are free to steal this idea -- we should get our health insurance through the same system that gave us fedex and 47 varieties of orange juice. [laughter] that gave us the iphone and not the system that gave us the internal revenue code and harry reid. [laughter] imagine, i always think if -- thank heaven democrats did not decide back in the '80s, you know, cell phones are very important. they're very important. everyone should have a cell phone. if they had moved into, you know, obama cells back then, cell phones would still with the size of this lectern and cost
3:09 pm
$8,000 each. but liberals can't learn from what's right in front of them. viruses can learn. mollusks learn. liberals cannot learn. [laughter] all we can do is beat them which would be a lot easier if they weren't importing a million new democrats every year. that's proving to be quite a challenge for be us. for us. we got be our immigration policies from teddy kennedy who designed an immigration policy to make the country a lot more democratic. let's wring in people who will -- let's bring in people who will vote for the democrats. don't imagine liberals have been winning over americans with their dazzling arguments. no, they've changed the voters. they've changed the voters. without teddy kennedy's 1965 immigration act, romney would have won a bigger land slide against obama than reagan won against carter in 980. 1980. but they changed the voters.
3:10 pm
and the reason i say that was the -- romney got a higher percentage of the white vote than reagan did. in 1965 the white population was about 90% of the country, today it's about 62% of the country. now this does not, however, have to do with ethnicity or race, it has to do with immigration. immigrants are always more liberal than the base population of america. as phyllis schlafly has shown in her report, though those of us who have been paying attention kind of notice this on our hone. republicans are the -- immigrants, look at piers morgan. they're always liberal. it's actually, i mean, it's kind of a dirty trick democrats have pulled, because the majority of immigrants today are are hispanic, and hispanics are such darn hard workers, you just can't bear any ill will toward them. but the problem is too many immigrants and too fast eventually we'll win hispanic
3:11 pm
voters, i think, i hope. but as phyllis schlafly has pointed out, it took us a hundred years and ronald reagan to win irish and italian immigrants. they came at the beginning of the last century, and it wasn't until 1980 we started getting irish and italians to vote republican. by definition, immigrants are coming from countries that are more liberal than america. so until the entire globe is as liberal as venezuela, people will be coming from poorer countries, and they will be coming from more left-wing countries. it happens within our own country. i note that new yorkers have are, moving to vermont and new hampshire changed those two states. vermont used to be known -- i will dazzle you with this fact. vermont used to be known as rock-ribbed republican vermont. now it's represented by a far left democrat in the senate and a socialist. [laughter] oh, we've got to get away from new york. come to vermont.
3:12 pm
i know what this state needs, more liberalism. every single poll on the subject shows that recent immigrants of every ethnicity overwhelmingly support big government. hispanics support obamacare by 75%. that's compared to the population at large which according to an ap poll shows that only 26% of americans overall support obamacare. hispanics, 75%. this is a problem of immigration, not of ethnicity. the republican party's response so far has been to think if only we wring in more immigrants -- bring in more immigrants, maybe hispanics will hate us less. [laughter] no. they'll still vote democrat. they may not hate you. they won't vote with an angry glint in their eyes, but voting machines don't register angry glints. they also register votes. and it doesn't seem to have occurred to republicans that if they can't vote, they can't vote
3:13 pm
against you. more importantly, hispanic voters don't care about, about amnesty. they're already in. i mean, the legal ones. again, hispanics support the democratic party because they support big government not because they want their entire country moving here. the democrats know this perfectly well as is evidenced by obama's specifickedly spanish-language ads. he did not talk about amnesty when he took out ads in spanish neighborhoods, spanish radio, spanish tv. he said i'm going to give you free health care. if he thought, if they thought, if all of the democrats' campaign consultants thought that hispanic voters cared about amnesty, do you think they might have mentioned it? oh, no. this is all just to hoodwink the republicans into giving them 30 be million more voters. never in human history has one country just decided to turn itself into another country like this. you don't have japan saying, i
3:14 pm
know, let's be sweden. [laughter] finland isn't saying i want to be a little more germanic. look, i love these countries, but i don't want to live in germany. i don't want to live in finland. i don't want to live in japan. i wanted to live in america. why don't democrats? liberals act like it's a natural process and, oh, we're a king canoe trying to hold back the ocean's tide. no, no. no, no, no, there's nothing natural about this. again, teddy kennedy's immigration law was specifically designed to bring in immigrants from countries that had not supplied immigrants to this country for the first 300 years of its existence. consequently, since that law passed we've been taking -- at least since it passed in '65 and starting around 1970, we've been taking in about a million, legally, legal immigrants a year, 90% from the third world. of course that's going to change
3:15 pm
a country. [laughter] it's just, you know, little matter of who gets to live here and vote. we're told if it's good news that immigrants take welfare at only 15% above the native rate. [laughter] wait, only? that's like saying good news, only 15% of the food has rat feces in it. [laughter] we're thinking, no, no, rat feces. we want no immigrants on welfare. if we're bringing in people who immediately need assistance from the taxpayer, isn't that by definition immigrants we don't want? it's madness. we can't pay for our own poor people. with whose money are we going to pay for the poor of the world? i think we ought to be caring about our fellow americans more. the republicans have always, have always been the party that defended black people, particularly against the depplyation and segregation of
3:16 pm
policies of democrats. we haven't been getting a lot of love back recently. [laughter] but i don't think that's any reason not to do the right thing here. african-americans are hurt the by low wage labor pouring into the country. this has been shown study after study. jesse jackson used to be on the border trying to block immigrants from coming in. barbara jordan, the great civil rights hero, wrote the jordan report saying we have got to limit immigration. blacks are hurt the most. we're not democrats, we should do the right thing. oh you know who else is hurt by all this low wage labor coming into the country, hispanic immigrants who came this last year. [laughter] democrats love to say that republicans only care about the fetus until the baby is born. well, i say democrats only care about immigrants until they can vote. democrats don't care that last year's hispanic immigrants and the year before and the year before are saying, no, no, i don't want my wages to go down
3:17 pm
any more. i promise you if immigrants voted for the democrats, we would have chuck schumer down on the border with the minutemen. they just want the votes. do you think there's any place else in the world so stupid not to just search the world over and try to get the best immigrants it can get? try blowing up some other country's embassy. hello, india. i don't speak the language and i don't have any skills, but i'd love to come live there. [laughter] i'm hearing the weather's nice, and i love the food. say, if i can't make it in your country, would you guys mind cutting me a check once a month? [laughter] not so fast, skippy. whereas our immigration policy is anyone who lives within walking distance -- [laughter] the greatest country in the world, this is how we decide who gets to be an american, live here and vote. the theory of anchor babies is if i successfully break into your house, i get to own it. and if i don't get to own it, at least my kids do. that's not fair.
3:18 pm
it's not their fault, i told them we owned it. [laughter] not only do unskilled immigrants get to live here, they get to bring their brothers-in-law and third cousins. this isn't family reunification, it's tribal reunification. [laughter] we are getting entire villages from pakistan. this is how, this is how, you know, the guy who loans a donkey cart who's illiterate in his own language never mind ours takes precedence over a danish surgeon. oh, because i'm related to to some guy who already slipped through. among the great success stories of our family reunification plan is octo mom. she got in through family reunification and has already cost the california taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars with her mental problems. of course, the boston marathon bombers, family reunification. the new york city city subway bombers. this weird idea has somehow taken hold that it's unfair to
3:19 pm
try to get the best immigrants we can get. yes, it's unfair for that top model to date a good looking, wealthy guy. she should be forced to date a bald loser. [laughter] and college basketball teams have a lottery system for their players. why should a blind midget lose out to those seven-foot-tall stars? it's kind of touching that the democrats realize they'd never get americans to vote for them, so they had to bring in new voters. what i can't understand is why republicans are helping them. just because the democrats need 30 million new voters is no reason for republicans to vote to wreck the country. that's my thought. oh, i remember now, republican donors need lots of cheap labor. i always tell people if you're not sure what your position on illegal immigration is or even the continued legal immigration the way it is now, ask yourself do i have a maid, a nanny, a
3:20 pm
chauffer, a cook, a gardener? because if you don't have all those things, pool boy, if you don't have all those things, illegal immigration, in fact, low wage legal immigration is a net loss to you as a taxpayer. we are being taxed to subsidize these slave wages these immigrants are being paid. yeah, so it's great for sheldon edelson and mark zuckerberg, but we're subsidizing their low wage labor that is taking jobs from american citizens. republican politicians have just got to go to the donor class, the aid edelsons and the chambef commerce and say, look, we're going to give you osha reform, tax reform, tort reform, but you can't have everything. if we pass amnesty, we will never be in a position to help you again, and you can take your chances with nancy pelosi. [laughter]
3:21 pm
yes, i will, and and i'm almost done. [laughter] i just wanted to point out that within a few years the entire country will be like california, and i don't mean to be harsh, but you'll all be the kardashians. [laughter] there will be no reason for conferences like this, no reason to write conservative books, no reason for conservative talk radio or fox news. it will be over. over. it may be over now, but if amnesty goes through, there is no hope. any other bad law can be repealed. obamacare can be repealed. you cannot repeal who is a united states citizen and who was voting in elections. sensible americans have to get together and agree. only two things matter; obamacare and immigration. and all republicans are against obamacare, so that only leaves immigration. we have to tell our representatives that's it, we'll vote for you one more time, but if if you pass amnesty, we're done, we're out, the country is finished. thank you. i'll take your questions now. [applause]
3:22 pm
>> all right. who's first? ah, in the back row there. >> hey, my name is hillary, and i'm from mississippi. this isn't regarding directly what you were talking about -- >> no problem. you have to talk about anything. >> it has to do with the mississippi senate race, and i recently saw your comments a couple days ago which i appreciated, so thank you for that. what would you say to mississippians who are still complaining about the election and who claim they're going to vote for the democrat, travis childers, was they're angry about that? >> get their addresses for me so i can fly in and hold their heads under the water until the bubbles stop. [laughter] i know, you know -- [laughter] if they're such bad asses, why don't they cross the mississippi river and help tom cotton beat a democrat like pryor? no, we don't need these fights. this is crazy. and by the way, i understand the tea party patriots have pulled out on this. i wrote -- if you didn't see my
3:23 pm
column this week, what i wrote was this is killing chris mcdaniels. even when an election has been outright stolen from you, you shouldn't contest it. it's just the law of politics, you end up looking like a sore loser. that's installment one. installment two is coming next week, and i'll give you a little sneak preview. look, elections are dirty in a lot of ways. whatever they're complaining about the cochran team did, you know, the mcdaniels team pulled that ugly nursing home incident. i'm not blaming mcdaniels for that, i'm not blaming cochran for what people said about him. i think it looks awful to have tea parties out there, tea partiers challenging, claiming any vote by a black person was ipso facto fraudulent. and by the way, cochran is part of the republican generation i describe in my book "mugged" which is they were the republicans fighting against segregation, segregationist democrats -- all segregationists
3:24 pm
were democrats, so i'm repeating myself. cochran won his first election from a district that was majority black, majority democrat. the fact that he got federal money for an historically-black college and for a martin luther king memorial, you're complaining about that, tea partiers? no, no. and as for the only issues that i think really matter not only did cochran vote against obamacare which, again, all republicans did, he not only voted against marco rubio's amnesty and despite some claims you may have read online, he did not vote for cloture and then vote against it. those of you guys who work on capitol hill, you probably know this. one vote is to begin debate, the one is to end. the vote to begin doesn't mean that much. kind of bad form to vote against beginning debate. in retrospect, sort of wish they had, but very few republicans voted against beginning debate on the schumer-rubio bill.
3:25 pm
cochran did vote to end debate. so only this audience would even understand what i just said. he voted against not only marco rubio's amnesty bill, this is the clincher, cochran voted against ronald reagan's 1986 amnesty bill. that's pretty impressive. you vote that way i don't care how much bacon you bring back to the state. but republicans have got to stop this in-fighting. it's not like cochran -- sorry, just one more point on cochran. it's not like he's an arlen specter who's constantly against us. i don't really like the big spenders either, but by and large, cochran has been a solid conservative vote and has a great relationship with blacks in mississippi. he does get a lot of blacks to vote for him. it isn't true that this is a new thing. >> next question. over here. >> hi. katherine telford, i'm from northern virginia. i want to talk about immigration, and you kind of
3:26 pm
touched on this right at the end, and i've heard you mention it before that if amnesty passes, that's kind of it for the republican party. like, that's game over. but, you know, what if amnesty doesn't pass? i know the demographics have already changed -- >> right. >> kind of what do you think where we already means for the future of -- where we already means for the future of the democratic party. >> i'm glad you asked that. i always say amnesty to also include continuing our current immigration policies. that is amnesty on the installment plan. what we need is an immigration moratorium. 100% right now. wages are at rock bottom. you can't pick up a new york times without hearing about income inequality. you want to cure it? stop dumping a million low wage workers on the country. democrats claim they care about the poor? no, no, no. no, they care about their ethnic lobbies, their bloc voters and wall street. and it's great for them, but the republican party is the party of
3:27 pm
hard working americans, middle class, lower middle class. as i say, we always have been the party that defended african-americans from the deprivations of the democrats, and i think we should continue that. so, no, continuing the status quo gets us to the same place, end of america, just a little more slowly. >> i think there's a question over here. yeah. >> hi there, my name's andrea, i'm from san diego, california. ms. coulter, you mentioned that your hope is that the republican party win over the hispanic vote, and you mentioned some ways that the democrats have, you know, tried to win their vote and successfully won their vote. i'm wondering what you think it will take for the gop to do the same, to reach out maybe not only to hispanics, but also the asian vote which is also a really rising population. >> right. those are the two main immigration groups. the main thing it's going to take is time. and there's no way to get around that. it isn't just whispering sweet
3:28 pm
nothings in their ears. you know, moses had to live out in the desert for two generations until you had a generation born in freedom. it's just going to take time in large part, so we shouldn't think there's a silver bullet here. right now the only way is to offer even more obamacare. i mean, these are people coming from places, they aren't used to living in freedom and being able to choose their own leaders and, i mean, obviously, we have some hispanics, be -- but it's striking the longer they've been here, the more likely they are to vote republican. one of my friends the other night reminded me the first year of law school there was a gal whose ethnicity was mexican, and he had this horrible embarrassing moment when he said to her how long has your family been here. she said a hundred years, how about you? [laughter]
3:29 pm
and she was a good republican, that jan. so, i mean, there are plenty of hispanics who have been here for generations, and we certainly have them. we don't even have all the irish yet. i think we need to work on our outreach to the irish. [laughter] >> i think -- >> so the main thing is not to think that there's a silver bull. bullet. >> okay. i think there's a question over there, peter. >> thank you. my name is lindsay, and i am from missouri. you made a comment about todd aiken, and as someone from missouri, we kind of think he's crazy. and so i was wondering if you could maybe talk a little bit about what republicans or conservatives can do to keep people like todd aiken from running, kind of ruining our stereotype for our party? >> well, i mean, i don't think -- maybe i'm wrong, but i don't think anybody saw it coming. he wasn't endorsed by national right to life, he wasn't endorsed by sarah palin. it was the democrat candidate who was pushing him.
3:30 pm
i mean, the more shocking one, i think, was richard murdoch who by all accounts was smart be, you'd think he'd be a good one, and he turns around and starts talking about a pregnancy in the case of rape be a gift from -- of rape being a gift from god after the aiken thing. and by the way, as a political commentator, i argue both those points on their side. that's why you should never, ever run me for any office. [laughter] and that's why, i mean, i guess one thing i think tea partiers -- i say that just sort of generically about people who have not been involved in politics and are suddenly getting involved in politics. one thing they have to learn is these are very different skills, being a politician and running for office. i mean, you can see it with -- democrats have a lot of good politicians, and i don't mean about their ideas, i mean just in political skills. and i'd recommend to you, and you'll laugh but i am right, joe
3:31 pm
biden, dick durbin, mcconnell's very good politically, and that is, you know, they know how to say things in a way that attracts the most voters while repelling the fewest number of voters. the job of a political commentator like me and like most of the people, you know, we see on tv and read and everything, we're trying to change people's minds. a politician has to take the voters as they are and win their votes. and aiken just makes me angry because he could have withdrawn. and it's just so narcissistic of him. he claims he cares about abortion. he is now -- he has now made it harder, perhaps impossible, to overturn roe v. wade. we need to take the senate. the senate confirms supreme court nominees. and, you know, after this huge -- it's not like anyone did this to him. it wasn't like the republican party took a poll and said, oh, we think this other candidate would be stronger, would you mind withdrawing?
3:32 pm
no. this was a self-inflicted wound. nobody should have even had to ask. you should have just said, oh, okay, guys, say no more. i'm out. but, no, he checks with his campaign manager, his wife, his campaign publicist, his son -- [laughter] and they pray together which also makes me want to strangle him and decide he's going to stay in the race, and we lost an easy pick-up. just keep your eye on the ball, republicans, whether you are republicans, tea partiers, whatever. we have to win elections, we can't do anything if we don't win elections. i mean, you'll notice there's one senator, my second most hated senator, mccain's number one is lindsey graham, and i didn't say anything about that election because i didn't think we had a strong candidate. i mean, if i lived there, i might have worked for one or the other, but it just didn't seem like it was worth expending one ounce of my energy unless we're going to win. and that's how i look at races. if you're going to challenge a
3:33 pm
republican, i wrote a column about this. number one, i don't even want to hear about it unless you voted against amnesty. again, what matters? obamacare, amnesty. all republicans are against obamacare, that only leaves amnesty. so, first, i am not interested. i'm out unless you can tell me he voted against amnesty, and second, you better have somebody pretty good who can actually beat him, and, third, make sure it's in a race where we're not going to lose the seat altogether. >> well, thank you very much, ann -- [applause] >> thank you. [applause] oh, one more thing, if you don't mind my saying, i'm going to be signing. we have some books out there, and then there's one sort of crazy thing you won't have seen before, these ann coulter dvds. we're down to the last ones. some liberal friends of mine made it because they told me, who was it, they were doing some boring liberal politician, they said he's boring, can we do you. it's won awards, it's supposed to be great. i haven't seen it because i don't like watching myself, but it is now on sale because i don't want to have to carry them
3:34 pm
back on the plane with me from $30 to $20. so please buy them so i don't have to carry them on the plane. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> we're going to take a ten minute break to allow people to get a book if they'd like. and since we're conservative, we don't do freebies. if it's an autotwraf or a picture, you've got to get a book or a dvd. thank you. [inaudible conversations] charles a. johnson, and his new book is called "why coolidge matters." charles is an investigative journalist and author and a former contributor to the daily caller. he has just launched got last week, and he's spent a lot of time talking about that race. that mississippi be race. he has written for "the wall street journal", "the new york post," american spectator, claremont review and national review online and the weekly
3:35 pm
standard. charles johnson's work on exposing corruption and fraud in elections, government and federal policy has placed him on several national shows and networks as well as numerous talk radio programs including i just was listening to a news conference this morning that he was pretty exciting. so please welcome charles johnson. [applause] >> well, thank you so much for having me. i though there are a lot of questions on mississippi, and we can get to those. i know there are a lot of people who potentially don't like me because of things i've tweeted, and we'll get into that. we can, you know, smack it around. i know there are a lot of establishment people and nonestablishment people and all the various permutations that exist. but for the moment because i've been asked to speak about this and also because it's awesome, i am talking about my book, "why coolidge matters: leadership lessons from america's most underrated president." now, you might ask, which a lot of people would, why would somebody in their 20s write a book about the last red-headed president? it seems like a strange thing to
3:36 pm
do, momentum it? [laughter] and why would somebody this their 20s write about a president who was around in the 1920s? what's the deal? i mean, there's this other coolidge book, right? amity shlaes' who has a different perspective. by the way, this book is one of three that's been endorsed by ted cruz who, you know, i hope might be another president in the near future. but this book, my basic argument of this book is that history matters and there's so much about our history that we, those of us on the right know that isn't so as reagan put it and ought to know but don't because the left controls our curriculums and, essentially, controls our minds. now, cool coolidge, why is coolidge interesting in coolidge lived this a time in which there were riots, there were all these questions about immigration, there were fights with public sector unions -- they didn't call them that then -- there were fights about the very nature of government. there were fights over education, how should our colleges look, what should they be teaching?
3:37 pm
and he won on every one of these issues. he actually transformed the nature of government, and he used things, this very shy, kind of dry wit of a man used the technology of his time, radio, to go and get his message out to the whole country. he was the first president to appear on radio. excuse me, to appear on television, on film. they didn't have television yet this those days. and he's the first president -- the last president, rather, to write his own speeches. and we know that a young man somewhere in the midwest was listening to him on the radio and that he actually decided that he would go into radio because of what he heard from calvin coolidge. that man, of course, was ronald reagan. and ronald reagan, of course, took coolidge's portrait and hung it in the oval office. he was criticized. after all, coolidge was a do-nothing president, right? that's what we've all been taught. that's what people told us, right? it's basically like woodrow wilson, he's awesome, right? world war i, expansion of
3:38 pm
government, cool. and then they go into, like, oh, that -- those terrible republicans who used the market, and they basically made mom and pop starve to death, right? that was the whole great depression. republicans gave us the great depression. let me contend that that is entirely garbage. and we can go into exactly why it's garbage. i go into it at length in my book. but essentially, cool imwas the last president -- coolidge was the last president to pay down the debt. during the 1920s one of the most expansionist times in human flourishing, right? we've got literacy rates are increasing, women are actually involved in the workplace. coolidge is at the same time that fdr is insisting that photos of himself with blacks be destroyed, coolidge is going and partying at the negro league's baseball games. he joins, he signs a law that makes native americans citizens and not just makes them citizens, but at the same time he joins native american tribes because his argument is if they
3:39 pm
can join our tribe, i should be able to join their tribe. so this, we have a long, proud history with coolidge, and it's my contention that american history runs essentially from, runs essentially from the founders through lincoln, lincoln to coolidge -- and we can debate lincoln ad nauseam. i am, of course, of the claremont school which many of you i recommend that you read the claremont review of books. and what essentially happens is lincoln, then coolidge, then reagan, then the tea party movement and then potentially cruz or rand or whatever, pick your poison. and that's my kind of contention on history. now, i am a believing christian. coolidge was a believer as well. he was actually one of our most religious presidents. he colored a lot of his speeches with religious allusions, and what he was doing is he was trying -- he made this argument which i think is essential right now for conservatives to grasp which is that man has a spiritual nature, and if you
3:40 pm
touch the spiritual nature as he understood it, you can actually transform government. and i know that there are a lot probably scoffing of our libertarian friends who are reading ayn rand and are atheists and whatever, but nonetheless, this is true. this is why coolidge was able to give speeches in all different audiences and actually win sizable majorities of ethnic groups that had previously never voted republican again and that have not voted republican since coolidge. i think that this kind of approach to politics of, as coolidge liked to put it, you shall know the truth and it shall set you free. this kind of approach is actually essential for people who are of limited government mindsets. you know, it might surprise you that one of our most religious presidents was also the last president to actually trim government and actually cut government. and he gave a lot of arguments for why this is the case. and this kind of messes with our idea that compassionate conservatives or libertarians and all these different things are all at war with one another. it's not quite the case. now, i'm happy to kind of go
3:41 pm
into coolidge. i'm also happy to go into mississippi's senate race. before i go to the mississippi senate race, let he say a few things. i've actually been to mississippi, right? how many people in this room have been to mississippi just by a to show of hands? good. you're not all sucked into the beltway, this is good. if you saw the racist radio or heard the racist radio ads, if you heard the robocall, if you saw the fliers, these are all things i found when i was in mississippi. i was invited down by the tea party express. track a bunch of mint juleps, had a good old time. but i was noticing what was going on in mississippi, and it disgusted me because this is a stolen election. i have lots of documentation that i've been releasing and helping matthew boyle at breitbart. there's a lot of stuff that will continue to come out. some of my tactics you're probably reading about, they're unorthodox, right? they're probably a little strange. who, after all, sets up a go fund me account and encourages people to give him money, some
3:42 pm
of which he then uses to bribe a reverend to go and tell them about allegations of voter fraud. kind of a weird thing to do, right? but let me submit there's a lot of stuff the conservative movement for a long time, and they played by marcus of queensbury rules, and they've been losing. in fight after fight, on issue after issue we've been losing, and the country reflects our losing. and state after state, you know, county after county, place after place we lose. and so what we have to do is we have to start thinking strategically. i was a competitive chess player in high school. i played poker, helped pay my way through college playing poker. we need to start being strategic and having fun. and be so there's a certain sense to which those of us who are young in the room, we have a certain way which we can actually change things in this country. after all, it's going to fall to us. a lot of the folks who are out there now, they're too invested in the system the way it is, and it's going to fall to those of us who have camera phones, the james o'keefes of the world, the
3:43 pm
hannah giles of the world who think outside the box about how to solve these problems. now, i will tell you i have a lot of material on menendez that's yet to come. i've helped the fbi on a number of projects, i think journalists should, first and foremost, be after truth and justice, so i'll continue to help law enforcement, and i have been in contact with the sec, and my friend rick over there in the back, he and i were in front of the national media today doing a press conference showing how the nrsc and how a number of other kind of establishment conservative organizations were violating sec rules with what they were doing in mississippi. and all this, you know, is coming out. i commend you come to i will actually pay you up like some other places. i actually believe in freedom and money. and, actually, you know, if you do the work, you should probably be paid a just wage. i know this is a novel concept for a lot of interns. i promise you, it gets better. so with that, i'll take some questions.
3:44 pm
anything, hit me. whatever you've got, any rumors you've got. so let's go. so anything. anyone? yes. if you'd say your name just so we can be facebook, you can follow me at chuckcjohnson. >> coolidge often was known as the do-nothing president, and conservatives like that on his domestic policy. but on foreign policy he's remembered foreign policy primarily for the -- [inaudible] which outlawed war. obviously didn't go too a well. and i think generally an isolationist. so if you want to talk about his foreign policy ideas. >> yes, great question. there's a chapter in my book dedicated on this topic. i'll even give you a discount because i'm grateful for being here. let me just say on the foreign policy question this is a great question. there's this attitude that a lot of our neoconservative friends have that the 1920s, basically they cut the government, they cut the defense department, and that's what gave us world war ii. i don't subscribe to that view. first of all, it's historically
3:45 pm
wrong. there was this kellogg pact that did, you know, pretend to outlaw war. but coolidge was very clear at the time this was signed that you can't outlaw war any more than you can legislate peace. he thought this was a ridiculous idea. he nevertheless thought, though, what needed to happen after world war i was military reductions. and he encouraged the japanese, the british, he encouraged the french all to follow international arbitration agreements to reduce -- remember, he doesn't have world war ii yet, so he doesn't have to -- this hasn't yet happened. so everyone's reducing naval armaments, and by and large it's working until people start to realize, oh, looks like the japanese and the british are cheating. what is coolidge's final act in 1929? to sign a bill authorizing the first aircraft carrier, also to sign a bill authorizing the first cruisers. and he was not -- he was of the view when it comes to military intervention that as john quincy adams put it, that we are the friends of liberty everywhere
3:46 pm
but custodian only of our own. i think a lot of our conservative, neoconservative friends have this idea that we need to be militarily involved in countries where we do not know the cull you culture -- cue in order to have our foreign policy advanced. i'm of the angelo codevilla school, if you've read some of his stuff, i highly recommend it. rebel makes no trouble, that a strong united states is not necessarily a united states that intervenes militarily in every country. coolidge is of that view as well. and so he would get involved, and he did get involved in a number of skirmishes in mexico, in the caribbean. and so he was not kind of a do-nothing kind of military type. he was very loved and respected by the military. and so he had, he had a record that was quite successful on this front. now, as for what came afterwards, i mean, arguably, you know, so my grandfather, you know, you can google this, it's true, you know, it was a, was a
3:47 pm
rear admirable, dwight limon johnson, navy cross winner. there were a number of people who in the '30s took the position that there's this view that disarmament occurred because we didn't have -- there weren't big enough armies in europe, right? this is a common idea. turns out bruce thornton and a bunch of other military strategists have written it's totally not true. the german army was much smaller than the french army. disarmament was more of a mental thing than a strategic positioning thing. and so what worries me about the united states right now is we can militarily have a much more efficient military. i've talked to erik prince of blackwater fame, and he said, look, i can build you a helicopter resupply mission that takes out 76 people and do it with four people. i can build you a leaner, meaner military if you so choose. he did it with blackwater. he did the fedex solution to
3:48 pm
the military. so those of us who believe in the military, we have to understand that the purpose of a military is to secure the constitution of the united states and to make sure we all live as free be people, right? as a free people. not to go into savage lands and throw lots of money at defense contractors and waste a lot of that money, get a lot of stuff wrong, get a lot of people killed and go and start, you know, blood wars. i'll give you a perfect example of this stupidity. you guys have seen zero dark thirty, right? now, in zero dark thirty there's a scene in which they're coming, and a lot of people have written about this. i know this is far afield of your question, and ask i'm trying to answer it in my rapid-fire way. what happens is they go, there's a scene in zero dark thirty in which the cia woman is blown up by this guy who has explosives in his car. what they don't tell you this real life that guy for two years was selecting all of the drone targets. so he was telling us to go assassinate people who are
3:49 pm
against his tribe's interests. so what we were doing was we were the garbage disposal service for one tribe against another. and so what bothered me the most about that is our intelligence was so lacking. and what i would say is that those of us who do believe in a strong defense, information is probably our most powerful weapon in the kind of new age. and i think coolidge understood that. he understood that warfare was changing radically. he was one of the first people to understand the future of war was going to be fought from the air, so he was very friendly to mitchell and others who understood as technology changes, battlefields change as well. and i think that's something we on the right need to be very aware of in the future because, frankly, we can't afford $900 hammers anymore. it's not possible. it's not the right thing to do. it's immoral, and it's a waste of our taxpayers' limited resources. so, yes, next question. >> right here, jordan. >> hi, i'm jordan henry from missouri, and i know you are exactly right. in my public high school ap u.s.
3:50 pm
history class, the general consensus on coolidge by our teacher was, okay, he didn't do too much, so let's blame the republicans on the great depression so we can get to world war ii. so what was it that first got you interested in studying so in depth this forgotten president? >> first of all, there are only 34 books on coolidge. so i was like, all right, i'm going to read those -- >> as opposed to lincoln. >> this is not well-trod ground. there's a reason that this, you know, and what was weird to me is that he was likely dick lousily popular when -- ridiculously popular when he was president. people wanted him to run again in 1928. why is it that all these people believe one thing about coolidge and all the people who were alive, including the 100-year-old lady i met who voted for him -- why is it they were all so pro-coolidge? and i was trying to figure this out. what actually happened with the depression? and it's my contention that the
3:51 pm
depression is a function of many different things. one thing it's a function of is big government republicans. there was this view that the republican party, shocker of shocker, was split into factions. one faction was very much an establishment faction. they wanted to just manage everything. their attitude was we need a businessman to lead, an executive to lead our party. that's the herbert hoover faction. then there was another faction which was we need a constitutional conservative, a guy who really believes in the declaration of independence which was central to coolidge's thinking. he really believed that this idea actually, his christian view was as we all have a common father in god, the father, therefore we're all brothers. and so any form of government in which i try to enslave you or you try to enslave me be it ciezer isism in the form of world war i, be it slavery, be it indentured servitude, all of that is against god's wish for
3:52 pm
all of us. and i go into some length on his christian faith, why that was so important to what he was trying to do. but what happened with the republican party is they realized they could not actually defeat the woodrow wilson faction, unpopular though it was for an unpopular war, until it combined factions. and so coolidge was very much a part of combining that -- nevertheless, he recognized that while herbert hoover was his commerce secretary or, herbert hoover also was not necessarily about the kind of politically small c conservative declaration of independence approach to things. on the contrary, he said he dismissively referred to him as his wonder boy. he said for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice, all of it bad, and he refused to endorse him until the last possible moment which was never done at the time. and to the last possible moment he refused to endorse him. now, why? because herbert hoover was a mining executive, a big government, he believe inside
3:53 pm
sort of the progressive mindset that businessmen can run things better, right? as if we are all just kind of cogs in a a machine rather than free men and free women who want to live a certain way. coolidge was very much opposed to that. so the commerce secretary -- how am i doing on time? >> you're doing fine, tine. >> all right, good. i have a lot to say, and so i try to say it quick. but the commerce secretary at the time, herbert hoover, expanded the government massively in his own department. and many of the things that he did in the 1930s when he was president, excuse me, from '28 until '32 was fdr-like. and there was no distinction between what fdr wanted to do and, philosophical distinction between what fdr wanted to do and what herbert hoover wanted to do. kind of like bush and obama when it comes to things like t.a.r.p. there was no philosophical distinction. so what ended up happening is, obviously, the great crash
3:54 pm
happened. we should note, by the way, that the crash of 1920 was actually much larger than the crash of 1929 just as, you know, just like an actual, observable fact on the stock market. and so there are a lot of people who thought, oh, we'll just bounce back from this. after all, the recession of 1920 was pretty bad. what do we do? we cut taxes and governments after the war, we had the roaring '20s. what herbert hoover did was increase the tear i have -- tariff, a number of policies that actually made the depression bigger. and it's my contention that the great in great depression is a function of fdr's kind of insane policies when it comes to interest rates and when it comes to government spending and and when it comes to the climate of uncertainty he created and the demonization he did of business. if that sounds familiar, i encourage you to open up a newspaper such as we have newspapers now today. but, yeah, any other questions?
3:55 pm
a mississippi question? >> lincoln has a question. >> yeah. i've got -- >> what's your name? >> my name is lincoln carper, i'm from st. louis, missouri. >> awesome name. >> i was going to ask you before i ask you about mississippi, what kind of poker did you play? >> texas hold 'em, of course. there is no -- what is this omaha silliness? >> that's how you're going to fund your college education in. >> i don't recommend that. [laughter] i don't recommend that. i discovered at one point that it's wrong, you know, i've since kind of sullied on poker because i think it is wrong to take people's money like in that capacity. it's much more fun to do research on rhinos and hunt them for sport. [laughter] so that's what i would say on that score. >> yeah, i passed the idea by my mom. i was going to ask you about mississippi. if you could just tell us for those of us who maybe aren't familiar with your work, summarize some the work you have done there and tell us what exactly's going to for those of us who are less well informed
3:56 pm
than we should be. >> we all know there's a controversial election that just took place for the republican runoff. some people respect aware of that -- >> i think we are. >> okay, good. so i'm going to start there, and we'll expand. i think, basically, what ended up happening is thad cochran, who is 76 years old, he's a little worse for the wear, you may have seen that story about him going to the democrat lunch. there's a lot of questions about his mental health and mental capacity x. he's running against chris mcdaniel or was running against him for the republican nomination to represent mississippi in the united states senate. now, what happened? what happened is that there was a concerted effort on the part of the haley barbour political machine, and haley bar boar is a former rnc chair, one of the most successful lobbyists in the united states. represented a number of dictatorships as a lobbyist. and i posted all this on twitter. you can go and see the documents for yourself. and he's former governor of mississippi. and as ed rollins, you know,
3:57 pm
another political consultant put it on charlie rose this week, haley barbour owns mississippi, and he used that owns statement. now, this offends me as a human being and as an american that one man can own a state. after all, these are our fellow citizens, and that seems wrong. so what i decided to do is i decided to see what was going on in mississippi. after all, i like to bust corruption, and if you're the most corrupt state in the union, then the journalist who likes to bust corruption should go to the most corrupt state. it seemed logical to me. so i got this invitation by the tea party express to go and talk about my book on coolidge. i had never met chris mcdaniel before. certain press reports have identified me as a mcdaniel supporter. i'm not a big fan of his. i'm not against him, but i'm not forhim. i'm not even registered to vote because, frankly, like, i live in california, and it doesn't really matter, and it seems like a lot of work just to get up and vote. maybe that will change, but i'm not even registered to vote, and i've been registered as all
3:58 pm
different things. what really interests me is busting corruption. so i go to mississippi and i start hearing about these flyers in the black community which essentially start saying chris mcdaniel is a klansman, and he is going to come, and he is going to, you know, take away your government benefits, he's going to shut down historically black colleges. i mean, you name the most absurd, racist things the democrats have said about you, now the republican establishment is saying it about chris mcdaniel. so naturally i thought chris mcdaniel was awesome, right? i felt if they're really this targeted towards him, there must be something there they're afraid of and what is it, right? because they're not actually talking about the issues. they tried to get a whole number of african-american voters, and they ran a whole bunch of racist radio ads and racist robocalls. you've probably seen those around. i found all those, posted them online. people thought i made them up, i didn't make them up. rick back there tracked down all of the different call stations
3:59 pm
and found out who the people were that were paying for all these. first of all, all these ads were produced by all-white firms, so they have this black guy come on, reverend with this jazzy voice in the background. by the way, we haven't released who funded all of them, but we do know right now that right now i can publicly say the national republican senatorial committee which fund raises off of defeat harry reid is using money to go and produce these ads to go and target black voters and to scare them. and what they're not telling them is that the you vote as a democrat in the primary, so the primary on june 3rd and then vote as a republican in the runoff, that's an illegal vote. and so what they're doing is scaring all these poor black people, and many of them very poor in the delta and elsewhere. these are all poor fellow citizens, right? and they're scaring them with accusations that chris mcdaniel is going to come, you know, for them and that he is quite literally a klansman.
4:00 pm
he's going to bring back the bad old days, he's going to bring back jim crow. and that's the kind of campaign that i thought was really disgusting. why are they doing that, right? that's the interesting question. after all, there are lots of senate races, why be so focused on that? let me suggest that thad cochran is going, should the republicans take the united states senate, thad cochran is going to be chief appropriator. he's going to be the head of appropriations. now, if you're the chief lobbyist who owns a state, the most corrupt state in the country, it helps to have the head appropriator in your corner. ..
4:01 pm
how likely is what craig voter fraud. well, there are an awful lot of old love, with allegations that are sensitive, who have a lot of documentation supporting the statements, there's a lot more that will come out. we've seen a lot of what was going on in counter after county is although the counties are controlled at a barber machine. in each one of these counties, they were it dorinda lauzon some cases the verizon people would vote as a democrat to vote in
4:02 pm
the runoff, which they're not supposed to do. they were simply in the pages which is like a big felony. they were running around with absentee ballot form and they were lying to people in registering as many people as possible. so right now, and set duration is 5900 votes. excuse me, 6900 does. that's a separation between these two candidates. overwhelmingly the republicans voted for mcdaniel and the republican primary. so this is going to continue to be contested, litigated. a lot more stuff will come out and i tend to post all of it i got, which is my new site. come work with me. exchange the world. the basic attitude about this is his corruption needs to be called out. if we don't stop it here, don't draw line in the sand. by the way, lots of people draw this line. ted cruz said he found it
4:03 pm
appalling, which you better believe the ted cruz people are going to use this as differentiation, a line in the sand when they run against her in all attorneys. you know, at martin of the missouri, gop, the cherry adair said it was repugnant and there should be a full investigation. many people called ferny vendors that do this kind of work. these gunmen to the minutia about the fec violations of having pacs to senatorial work. there's a lot more stuff coming out. basically and they loosed with it. if you want to help, can pay to help you. >> one more question from the back. avery. >> hi, hannah stevens for michigan. i was wondering you decide you're not registered to vote, but you're so deeply involved in politics, why do not exercise your right to vote. >> i totally agree with you. my wife is a democrat. she vote and she likes to vote. i worked as a precinct worker in
4:04 pm
boston. highly recommend fresno. come and join me. we can go do that kind of thing. it's a very serious question. i would put it this way. i love my country. i'm involved in the political process. one reason i don't notice i've had a number death threats against me sane people would literally cut my head off, like literally. and i was told by law enforcement contact when i did work with the fbi that i should do as much as possible. so i live in a gated community. i have a gun in every room of my house and my wife has a different made name. so i should do as much as possible to avoid detection. so that's a big reason i don't vote. i have voted in the past. i did vote in the last election because i was going to move to where i live now. i did vote for the democrat who is running because it was funny. generally speaking i am very supportive of the right to vote.
4:05 pm
i don't think what would've been a country where people steal elections and whether such corruption and how choices are forms that we all have comparative advantages we have to make. i intend to go after corrupt republican as they have with thad cochran. i'm not interested in being a part of a political tribe. i krishan these are such that you shall know the truth and i shall set you free, but i'm not interested -- i believe it is a close over parties and other people. i think registering to vote in being a part of the republican machine in my wallet is fun for a lot of people and i understand people get rewards for it and it's important, my value added, like i don't even leave the house to get food. i am working all the time 6:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. my wife has to literally pull me away to go on a date. my attitude is this is the cause of my life. i'm happy to work as long as


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on