tv Book Discussion on Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 CSPAN August 8, 2014 12:56am-1:34am EDT
works. the left is moving ahead away from the principles all under theories that this central planning and central management can actually work. but those policies have been on full display during the obama administration and our economy, despite spending more, trillions more than we ever have, on economic stimulus, we are still in a stagnant economy, which puts people like you in the terrible situation, going through college, developing student loans and not even sure that they'll be opportunities on the other side. but this is not something you have to stand for. it's not a permanent situation. these are things that can turn around relatively quickly because all of the thing that made this country worker still at work, and they're just not working as well, because 0 very oppressive federal government, oppressive taxes, oppressive regulations, and those people up
here who think they can control your life when they can't even run their own lives, and they certainly can't run congress. so, folks, appreciate you. it's very unusual for folks at a young age to begin to understand that actually freedom is your best path to prosperity and also your best path to security. the idea that governments dependency will make you secure is a fool's errand. it's not true. you're most secure when you're most free, and we prove it every day at heritage and so do you. so thanks. i'll shut up and -- >> take questions. >> how about that. >> let's have some questions. >> thank you. >> come on. >> answered them all. >> there we go. down in front of here. >> start us off. >> my name is carrie and i'm from texas. i have a question about common core. as a future teacher, what are
some ways 0 as grassroots activist you can push against common core and how to enlighten other parents or other people's eyes about the dangers of what it actually is. >> this is one of those programs that on the cover sheet just sounded wonderful in the beginning. it was voluntary by states or whatever, but after you saw all the regs and how they basically tied up all the money that states need unless they adopt this, it's another example of good intentions gone awry. jeb bush, who did a great job as governor in florida with school choice, very innovative things which proved successful. the problem is, as once you see that happen, you forget the reason it happened is that he went outside of the federal regimen and did something different in photograph if you want to take what happened in florida and start creating national standards, basically
what you do is conform every state to something, instead of creating an environment where states are trying to improve of what florida did and keep growing and keep making things better. so, what we need to convince people of is this idea of federal standards which sound wonderful, it sounds benign, actually keep quality down over time and give the federal bureaucrats control over what happens at the state level. the best way for schools to operate is for teachers to have more control of their classroom, principals to have more control of their school, local school boards and parents to help shape the curriculum there and create a best practice situation that worked in so many industries where you can compare what you're doing with others, accommodate the things that others are doing better and keep building a belter and better system, rather than creating a static, one size fits all federal system. it doesn't work. if it did -- we spend more per
capita than any other country in the world on education, and everyplace around the country, like washington, where we spend over 20,000 per student per year, you get the lowest quality of all because the bureaucratis nightmare. to... you -- and if we could get more teachers to break away from teachers' unions. that really hurts because the information that comes through teachers' unions about political issues is so skewed. they are a detriment to our whole education system. i appreciate you being willing to be a teacher, and i hope you can get in a system where you can be as good as you can be and not be in some kind of seniority tenure system controlled by unions. >> a question back there. >> thank you for being with us, senator jim demint. >> your name. >> helleri rose in jackson taxes
you are talking about immigration reform. i am wondering if you could expand a little bit on that. the you think the talks will be successful or do you think anything good will come out of those things ? >> this is a human tragedy, and you have to recognize that first. a lot of these are teenagers, but you have younger children. what we have to go back to, the president mentioned in his talk, the root causes, and he acted like it was funding, like the root cause is funding. he has a half a trillion dollars to deal with on domestic issues including border security. the root cause of this is all of this talk of amnesty. if you make your way to america illegally, if you get here you are going to get amnesty, citizenship, and a better life. the human traffickers in
central america for the last two years have been using obama's own words as they're marketing campaign. it has encouraged parents to do the unthinkable in many cases and pay these people money to put these kids on that death train as it is called in mexico hanging off the sides in many cases to go from central america to our borders knowing that our laws and the president's executive order, if you can get there they will turn you away. what we have done is created an invitation for people all over the world, particularly central america to make their way to our borders. in now with the president wants to do is first of all ask for this irresponsible amount of money that will change things so that he can make it a battle between he and congress. he is smart politically because the media always buys into this. he said the solution is this giant amnesty that was proposed by some in the senate. what you see on the borders
right now is just a small glimpse of what this massive amnesty would do to our country. think about it. he needs nearly $4 billion to deal with about 50 or 60,000 children. what ll he needs nearly $4 billion to deal with about 50 or 60,000 children. what's it going to cost to deal with 11,000,001 to grant amnesty and get into the processing of these people and bringing them into the american system? it won't work and what it will do is make the situation on the border much much worse. back before your time and when ronald reagan made very few mistakes but he said one of the mistakes was congress that they give amnesty 3 million illegals here at the time they would then fix the border and fix our immigration system. but all that did was encourage
millions and millions more to come here illegally and create hardships not just for themselves and their families that he left but hardships for americans and those who immigrated here legally. to say our immigration system no-space-on who came here illegally was wrong, it's unfair to those who follow the legal process and what we need to tell the president is to stop talking about amnesty, stop misleading people particularly in central america and if they send their children with these human traffickers that they are going to have a better way of life. they are abused. in many horrible ways as part of this process and we are encouraging them. it has nothing to do with what congress did or didn't do. all of this is at the feet of president obama.
>> next question. >> i am from michigan and i was wondering what is your position on global warming to date? >> you notice they had to change the name of that. they call it climate change. lisa called that at the four seasons. [laughter] but you know they are having problems with this warming phenomenon because the globe hasn't warmed in 15 years. the massive panic is a problem. i'm afraid a lot of this global warming talk goes back to where i started. it's one way to get more control at the federal level. a lot of aspects of our economy have developed across the country. we need to take care baram by men. we need to continue to improve everything we do, our air and
our water and armed by or mitt but what we are spending now, even the folks who believe it say that these hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending on global warming is not going to make a fraction of a difference within the next 50 or 100 years. there is no one claiming that what we are doing is actually going to change anything in the near term or even the long term. so let's don't confuse taking care of our environment and making sure that we continue to reduce pollution in every way that we can. i think we are making progress in that area but to do what they are doing under this guise of weather change is completely ridiculous right now. but they are doing to raise the cost of energy in america. instead of continuing to improve the clean energy resources that we have, for instance they are
so hypocritical, the last. natural gas is a third less polluting than oil or coal. and we have it in abundance in jail but as we start to develop it who was trying to stop the development of natural gas in our country? is the same people pushing global warming when in fact we could have cars and trucks running on compressed natural gas. we could have more and more of our electricity produced by natural gas but who has been stopping that for years and continues to? the same people who want to get more control of our lives with this climate change phenomena. so i think we need to be all as conservatives in agreement that arm by or mitt is precious and we need to protect it and make it better but frankly a lot of the moves of the left in this area have actually hurt the environment more than they have helped it. a lot of the additives and fuels
that were supposed to make it less polluting have actually created more pollution, so i frankly think for most of it, it's a big power grab like just about everything else they are doing. let's agree to take care of the environment but if the globe is not warning the warming let's not spend millions of dollars that could be used in better ways right now. >> another question. on the end here. >> high make my name is katie and i'm from richmond virginia. a quick question. what would be the conservative argument for encouraging the keystone pipeline? what would you recommend we talk to our peers about that? >> the country is using energy and using oil and a lot of it so comes from the middle east. so getting more oil refined into
gasoline from canada is not hurting the environment. in fact moving it by pipeline is much safer for our environment than moving it in ships that can run aground and can leak in the hole transfer process where you get the load on ships and they are loaded in the harbor and many times on tankers or put in another pipeline in another part of the country. so the idea that somehow this pipeline is harmful to the environment is absurd in the first place. canada is one of our biggest energy resources. they are an ally. what is going to happen is if we don't accept those they are going to end up having to sell it overseas which makes us more dependent on countries like venezuela or wherever who don't like us. that's a very vulnerable situation for us to be in. so it's better for the environment to move from pipeline rather than the tankers and other transportation
involved and it's just good for it to have a north american security on energy. even the president's own people that he put in charge of studying this have come back and say it's all political and if you look back and you follow the money if some of his supporters who probably are promoting other forms of energy solar or whatever and just don't want the country to have more secure energy resources. >> well, any other questions? >> folks, thanks. >> thank you senator. [applause]
>> the house foreign affairs subcommittee on africa and global health heard from the head of the centers for disease control thursday about the ebola outbreak in western africa. you can see the entire hearing on line at c-span.org. here is some of what dr. tom friedman said. >> very strict infection control possible in the hospitals in the u.s. and there have been misconceptions about this. evil laugh is not as highly
infectious as something like influence over the common cold. what is so concerning about ebola is that the stakes are so high. a single lapse in infection control could be fatal. that's why the key is to identify rapidly and follow strict control guidance. it's certainly possible that we could have ill people in the u.s. to develop ebola while here after having been exposed elsewhere. it's possible they could spread it to close family members are health care workers if their infection is not rapidly identified. but we are confident that there will not be a large ebola outbreak in the u.s.. we are confident that we have the facilities here to isolate patients not only the highly advanced ones that really virtually every major hospital in the u.s.. what is needed is not fancy equipment. what is needed is standard infection control rigorously applied.
we have released guidance for doctors and other health care providers in the u.s. on identifying and diagnosing and treating patients and guidance for airline flight crews cleaning personnel and cargo personnel. fundamentally to end here we have three roads before us. we can do nothing and let the outbreak rage and i don't think anyone wants to do that. we can focus on stopping these outbreaks and that's something we will certainly do or we can focus not only on stopping these outbreaks but also on putting in place the laboratories the disease detectives the emergency response systems that will find, stop and prevent future outbreaks of ebola and other threats. we do face in this country a perfect storm of vulnerability with emerging infections like ebola resisting infections like the ones we discussed in our last hearing intentionally created infections would remain a real threats that we have unique opportunities to confront
them with stronger technologies more political commitment and success stories of real progress from around the world. earlier this year the u.s. joined with the world health organization in more than two dozen countries to launch a global health security agenda. that global health security agenda is exactly what we need to make sure we make progress not only in stopping a ebola but preventing the next outbreak of the second document we provided for you provides a summary of what the mapping is between what we launched in february before the outbreak was known or reported to have started and what's needed to stop the ebola outbreak. they are closely aligned. the president's budget includes a request to $45 million to cdc to accelerate progress and detection prevention and response. a former secretary of state for africa under secretary of state for africa said in his decades of work the cdc is the 911 for
the world. and though i was happy to hear that i realized really what we want to make sure is that every country or at least every region has its own public health 911. that will be good for them. it will be good for us in terms of safety and it will improve economic and social stability and expanding that type of work strengthening global health security will allow us to not only stop this outbreak but also prevent future outbreaks and stop them faster if they do occur. thank you so much for your interest in this.
>> next up ann coulter speaking about her book "never trust a liberal over three" especially a republican. this is about 40 minutes. >> our next speaker is ann coulter do -- her new book is called. [laughter] "never trust a liberal over three" especially a republican ann coulter started out as a new york city lawyer and then worked for the senate judiciary committee and as a litigator with the center for individual rights in washington d.c.. now she is a syndicated columnist with the universal press syndicate and the legal
correspondent for human advance. author of 10 "new york times" bestsellers and one of the most popular guest 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] >> i'm so happy i finally get to meet you. actually i am not that welcome on several of the station she just mentioned. things change. you really want to cement your career to be sure you speak only in clichés and make bad arguments when you're on liberal tv. you will be invited over and over again. i want to just start by saying things aren't as bad as they seem. they seem pretty bad. it seems like we are in the middle of the democrats 1000 year reich but when i was as
depressed as i have ever been in my life and i'm including my parents dying after obama won the second time beating romney i was going through, my mother happened to have the largest north american collection of clippings about ann coulter so i was going through them and i came across the "time" magazine that came out immediately after george bush won the election 2004 which should be of tremendous interest to this audience because you are all in kindergarten then. he probably don't have that issue. 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 and come back under another name. the reason my mother had it was there was a huge smiling picture of me, when her. sad picture of michael moore,
loser. so to read that magazine it lifted my spirits to remember that the pendulum does change but it takes activists like you and people talking and writing and arguing to make things change. remember obama did win twice but he has two characteristics that no other democrat has. number one, no record. that's big, unlike millie. the history of democrats is they are always going down based on what they did. michael dukakis when you weren't even a twinkle in your father's side. michael dukakis was important any remember john kerry throwing the medals. maybe you don't remember. throwing his, somebody 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 likeable. you have to admit he's the most charismatic person the democrats have had run for president in my lifetime. i hear people thought john f. kennedy was charismatic but obama is definitely the best they have produced in my lifetime. i think the only people you are going to have fainting at a hillary clinton rally will be the gals from now who can't take the heat. [laughter] but americans just keep telling pollsters they really like obama personally. he's a sort of person you wish you could like his policies. obama would probably make a great next-door neighbor unless you were chinese in which case he'd always be over borrowing something.
but i think after the messy is made for the past eight years republicans have a good chance in 2016 provided they run someone slightly better than todd akin. they have a very good chance especially if they talk a lot about obamacare. i have so far this year spent approximately 1 million hours trying to find a health care plan for myself. i'm self. i'm self-employed so i'm one of the few americans subjected to the provisions of obamacare. 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 cap is. for all 1 million hours i can say screw you and me geek have and the title of my article was screw you mickey kaus. i forgot to mention to him that it was coming so i sent him an
e-mail saying by the way i mentioned you in my column this week. [laughter] t. read the column and he said he made good points but what was so brilliant about this column is you were going to have every liberal in the country pouring through obamacare webpages to find a good plan for you now. 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 aromatherapy, hearing therapy, speech therapy and also pay for my cancer treatment. something has to go and apparently it's the paying insurers cancer treatment or whatever. nancy pelosi has said you know we had to pass obamacare to find out what's in it.
well hey we found out 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 take over health care. now was because one party had 60 votes. the democrats always use the worse things that have been passed in american history because of some fluke in history. watergate john mccain. they end up with that ignore nutley inordinately large majority and suddenly they have a to-do list. republicans never have a to-do list. george bush had the republican house and senate for this for six years of his presidency. what did we get done? obamacare pass with one party sneering ah-hah we have got 60 votes. the history of liberalism is passing things that sound good on paper to replace things that actually work.
americans kept saying really, do we have to replace our health care? liberals explain no, my roommate and i were both rhode scholars and we worked it out on paper. so now our entire health care system is going to be run by the same people that run the department of motor vehicles. [laughter] you know those incredibly long lines. now imagine you are standing in one of those lines but you are wearing a paper hospital gown open in the back. 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 to? tell me what your plan is. they don't have a plan. i have a plan. i have something i'm working on. i call it free-market capitalism. my idea is we let individual
shop for health insurance on the free market. now bear with me here. i know this sounds crazy but they 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. the government gave us the post office, public schools. that was one of my annoyances during the government shutdown. people on "fox news" saying when something is failing you don't get in the way. the public school system has failed and it's still with us. you apparently have to kick up quite a fuss to get rid of government programs. social security a ponzi scheme you would be put in jail if he were in the private sector and by the way it's now bankrupt. earned income tax credit is the most fraud-ridden program in history and that's saying something. and my favorite of the amtrak
service. for those of you on the east coast who are familiar with amtrak. it's a total monopoly. you are trapped on the frame train and if you forgot to get food before you got on the train you wait for the announcement. he can stand in line for 40 minutes and get a two-week old sandwich for $40. last year amtrak food service alone lost $72 million. how do you lose with a monopoly? only the government could do that. note that meanwhile the private sector has given us ever cheaper cell phone service flat-screen tvs, jerry garcia chia pets. 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. the airport security.
on the way down here i've got the full pat-down by tsa agents, so i went there again. [laughter] consequently my idea is that 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. that gave us the iphone and not the system that gave us the internal revenue code and gary reid. imagine i always think thank heaven democrats did not decide back in the 80s, and you know cell phones are very important. everyone should have a cell phone. if they had moved into obama sells back then, cell phones would still be the size size of this lectern and cost a thousand dollars each.
the liberals can learn from what's right in front of them. viruses can learn. mollusks learn. liberals cannot learn. 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 is proven to be quite a challenge for us. we got our immigration policies from teddy kennedy who designed an immigration policy to make the country a lot more democratic. let's bring in people who will vote for the democrats. don't imagine liberals have been winning over americans with their dazzling arguments. now, they have changed the votes. without teddy kennedy's 1965 immigration act romney would have won a bigger landslide against obama than reagan won against carter in 1980 but they change the voters. and the reason i say that was
romney got a higher percentage of the white vote than reagan did in 1965 when the white population was 90% of the country today at 62% of the country. 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 lastly has shone in her report. those of us who have been paying attention have probably noticed this on our own. republicans are the american party and democrats are the foreign party. look at piers morgan. they are always liberal. it's kind of the dirty trick democrats at the polls because the majority of liberals today are hispanic and hispanics are just such darned hard workers. he can't bear any ill will toward them but the problem is too many immigrants too fast. eventually we will win hispanic
voters i think, i hope that as phyllis schlafly has pointed out it took us 100 years and ronald of ronald reagan to win the irish and italian immigrants. they came at the beginning of the last century and it wasn't until 1980 that we started getting substantial numbers of irish and italians to vote republican. by definition until the entire globe is as liberal as venezuela people will be coming from poor countries and they will be coming for more left-wing countries. it happens within our own country. i know that new yorkers moving to vermont and new hampshire have changed those two states. vermont used to be known -- i will tazie with this fact. vermont used to be known as rock rimmed republican vermont. now it's represented by a far left democrat in the senate and a socialist. we have got to get away from new york. come to vermont. i know what the state needs,
more liberalism. every single poll on the subject shows recent immigrants of every ethnicity overwhelmingly support the government. hispanic 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 ethnicity ethnicity. the republican party's response has been to think if only we bring in more immigrants. maybe hispanics will hate us less. now, they will 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 immigrants. they only register votes and it doesn't seem to ever occur to republicans that if they can't vote they can't vote against you.
more importantly hispanic members don't care about amnesty. they are already in. i mean the legal ones. again hispanic support the democratic party because they support big government not because they want their entire country moving here. the democrats now as is evidenced by obama's specifically spanish language ads, he did not talk about amnesty when he took out ads on spanish radio in spanish tv. he said i'm going to give you free health care. if he thought, if all the democrats campaign thought hispanics -- cared about amnesty do you think they might've mentioned that? never in human history has one country decided to turn itself into another country like this. you don't have japan's saying thing i know, let's be sweden.
finland this and saying i want to be a little more germanic. i love these countries but i don't want to live in germany. i don't want to live in finland. i wanted to live in america. why don't democrats? liberals act like it's a natural process and we are trying to hold back the oceans tides. no, no, no there's nothing natural about this. the immigration laws 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 the law passed we have been taking in 65 and starting around 1970, we have been taking legal immigrants a year 90% from the third world. of course that's going