tv Book Discussion on Hillarys America CSPAN August 28, 2016 3:20pm-4:27pm EDT
for peer are and those from the worker movement, till death do us part. so it was a great read, very inspiring. want to thank the ford foundation for your support of this amazing work. the fight for 15 is the most important fight for economic justice in america today. i know from our own experiences that the foundation supports that work. i also want to give a shoutout to a few other really significant victories that the ford foundation, others in this room have been part of, and it goes to the point that in addition to needing organizing and needing new forms of building worker power, we need good government, and this is a shoutout to the best labor department that that we have had since 1938. they're not even here. [applause] >> so all of you know we have an amazingly bold new overtime rule, and we are fighting to keep this congress from stealing
wages that workers have finally won, and then on the -- a few days -- i have to say because kirk is here, we had april maises can, surprising decision out of the supreme court yesterday on texas' abortion restrictions and that was fantastic, but last -- also yesterday we had the court decided not to grant review of the home-care rule, which is another fight that the ford foundation has supported, and other organizations, for 20, 30 years. finally, home-care workers in the country are guaranteed the right to a federal fair minimum wage and overtime pay. 2 million workers went to bed last night knowing that for the first time in -- for the first time they have the same rights that most other american workers take for granted. we would not have this is we
didn't have good government supporting the work that unions like seiu and the people in the groups in this room have been doing to take advantage of this moment. so, i'm really -- i'm discouraged when look around and i come from the labor movement, when i think of what is happening with respect to the labor movement and also super excited about the things that we have been able to accomplish as a community over the last several years. have to admit we were among those who thought we wanted to work for -- in the fight for 15. we actually did that report on how many people earn less than 15, i'm happy to say that because of the fight for 15, today one in five american workers lives in a jurisdiction that has a $15 minimum wage. over the course of two or throw years, that's pretty damn amazing. [applause] >> so i just want to quote -- i never thought i would do this -- the great andrew cuomo. god bless him. shoot for the stars.
and i should tell you, after this, mingle, have another drink. the foundation is giving away copies of david's book but we do want to encourage people to go online to go to powell's book store and order copies for your family and friends. and david will sign it for you. so thanks very much. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. thank you students, staff and supporters for attending young america's foundation 38th 38th national conservative student conference. my name is jim straight and i'll be transferring to the university of utah after having
spent two years at the university of miami. i've had the privilege of interning with the young america's foundation this summer and we are honored to start the day with one of the most notable activists in in the conservative moment. the foundation is dedicated to conservative outreach, striving to inspire america's youth to -- we use programs like this conference to promote the ideas of individual free fro dom, free enterprise, strong national deand he was traditional values to young people across the country. each year the foundation succeed thursday introducing thousands of people to these ideas how to numerous conferences, internships, lectures. young americans for freedom chapters are center for entrepreneurship and free enterprise. in 1998 the foundation stepped ford -- forward -- reagan's ranch has been fundamental to our able to pass on his ideas to future generation. for more information on our
mission or our programs you can visit www.yes.org or call 1- 1-800-usa-1776. the first speaker today is one of the most distinguished leaders in the conservative movement. dinesh d'souza is a writer, scholar, and movie producer. a former policy analyst she serveds a a fellow at the american enterprise institute, and the robert and karen fellow at the hoover institution at stanford university. in addition he served as the president of the king's college in new york city from 2010 to 2012 in 1995 d'souza published the owned of racism which became a controversial book and a national best seller. hills 1997 book, ronald reagan, how an ordinary map became an extraordinary leader, was the first book to may make the case for reagan's intellectual and political importance in 2002 he
published "new york times" best seller, what is so great about america, which is acclaimed for the thoughtful patriotism. his 2003 book has become a hand book for a new generation of young conservatives inspired with his style and ideas. dip northwestern is one of our incredible speakers that's week and has encounsel tenner agreed success in literature and also film itch managed to infiltrate liberal hollywood and has produced three of me most successful political documents in history. hi most recent is the documentary that will change the landscape lawned on all15th all15th and become the highest grossing documentary of 2016. now, before we bring dinesh to the stage, look at this. >> who are these democrats?
>> it is my judgment, dinesh d sunday a was sentenced to spend eight months in a confinement center. >> it all began when the obama administration tried to shut me up. >> what did i learn? all crime is about stealing. the big criminals are still at large. >> see any reason to keep him. >> the system doesn't go after them. because they run the system. it's time to go behind the curtain and discover the soul of the democratic party. >> 50 lashes. >> oh, no!
please, no. >> the democrats support slaves. this civil rights act will allow colored men to sit at the same table besides a white guest. >> how many democrats who are now -- are the klu klux klan. >> to the democratic party. why has all this been swept under the rug. >> to cover the tracks of them democratic party. >> we're not even talking about ancient history. >> the racism continued into the 20th century. >> as long as the black men continue to ravish our who it women we will continue to live here. >> got to give them a little something. >> plantation politics. >> the democrats went from slavery to enslavement. >> corrupt big city bosses, how you get corrupt unionsy, what progressivism mean? social engineering and social
control. >> a large family -- one of the members is to kill it. >> the opening video of the democratic convention in 2012, government this one thing we all belong to. no. government belongs to us. we don't belong to it. >> what are these democrats hiding. >> this is about influence by foreign oligarchs and for government. when you foil the money there are very few coincidences. >> what is the goal of the democratic party is to steal the most valuable thing the world has ever produced? what if their plan is to steal america?
who will stop them? [applause] >> thank you very much. it's for me always an honor and privilege to be here at the young america foundation summer conference. i'm thrilled to be accompanied by my wife, debbie. we're both immigrants. debbie from venezuela and me from india. whenever i look at you guys, i always think about when i first came to america, i was 17 years old, and i was an exchange student from india, going to public school in arizona, and i remember the airplane descending on new york city and looked united states the window and saw the skyline of new york, i saw the statue of liberty, and kind
of a very strange feeling came over me because i realized that my life from that moment on would be totally different. i realized even without being political, intuitively, i was moving from the margin of the world to the center. and i realized i would be able to do things with my life i would not be able to do if i had stayed back in india. here in america, i have experienced the american dream. which isn't just a dream of economic success or opportunity. it's really that the dream of being able to be the architect of your own destiny. it is the dream of being able to write the script of your own life. and so here in america, if your parents say to you, young billy, young jane, what do you want to be when you grow up?
they can advise you, but at the end of the day, they know that it is you who will supply the answer to that question. now, fast forward 25 years and it was a year ago that i found myself locked up in a federal confinement center under the supervision of the bureau of prisons of the obama administration, with 120 seasoned hoodlums. i was going to say seasoned hoodlums like myself but they were certainly seasoned hoodlums, and this was for my crime of exceeding the campaign finance limit. i'd actually given $20,000 to a college friend of mine who was running for the senate. normally this is an offense, when there isn't any corruption, you aren't trying to buy favors or do any kind of underhanded
dealings, normally this is something that is referred to the federal election commission, it's not a criminal matter at all. you get a fine, maybe some community service. but in my case the obama administration prosecuted me with the full force of the law, unleashed a battery of fbi agents on me, tried to get any assistant to wear a hidden wire as if aways al capone, and there i was in a federal courtroom hearing a bailiff back another the phrase, united states of america% dinesh d sunday a. a childing feeling down your spoon when you're an immigrant. now, did i exceed the campaign finance law? yes. but no american has been locked up for doing what i did. in fact right about the same time that my case was migrating through the courts, another guy, named -- an asian indian guy -- we asian indians appear to
specialize in campaign finance violation areasin any event this dude gave $180,000 in straw donations to hillary clinton and a group of other democratic candidates. he was also found guilty of witness tampering and he openly boasted about his corruption, about trying to buy these politicians. this guy gets no prison, no confinement, so i mention this because justice is not simply a matter of, did you break the law? justice is also a matter of does the penalty fit the crime? did other guys who did the same thing get roughly the same penalty? i think we can see from my case that the progressive justice that i was subjected to was a sham. this was actually a kind of
selective prosecution. now, why die think that? because just a few months earlier i had made the film "2016: obama's america" in which i kind of got not only to obama's world but i also got into obama's head. people say, what makes you think the president of the united states, a relatively busy man, would care what you did. well, the reason i know that he did is because right after the film came out, attacks on me and the movie began to appear on a web site called "barackobama.com. and these attacks were unsigned but if you actually read them closely, in their peculiar mixture of arrogance, incoherence, pom possessity, one could recognize the unmistake able signature of the man who occupies the white house. so, this was why i found myself in federal confinement. confinement center.
now, initially i was kind of jubilant. the obama administration actually wanted to lock me up for up to two years. by the way, had they succeeded there's no way i could have made this movie on hillary. in fact i would be locked up now. but instead i got this eight-month confinement center in which i would spend the night in a dorm, about the size of this room, with 120 other guys who had served prison sentences, and these weren't white collar guys. there were maybe five to eight white collar crips. the rest were drug smuggler, coyotes, armed robberrers, rapist, the whole gamut of very rough guys guys and initial ilys kind of terrified because i thought myself, well, the majority were hispanic, but everybody seemed to be in some group or gang. and the gangs were complex. even the hispanics weren't in
one gang. then hispanics who are called southsiders had their own gangs and then the mexicans had their gangs so i'm like, man, can't talk to this guy because that guy will want to kill me. did consider starting my own gang, the asia indian gang, but after about a month, i thought to myself, look, i should -- i'm in a strange place. i'm like an anthropologist in a strange land, and this is not a place where you normally find conservatives. i'm not going to walk down the hall and see charles krauthammer or george will. so i said let me talk to these guys and learn the ideology of the criminal underclass. now, my previous exposure to this ideology was limited to two viewings of the shawshank redemption in which i had the idea that all criminals insist
they never did it. they're totally innocent. but in talking to these identifies over a period of many weeks, i realized that their view is somewhat different and more interesting. their view is, we did it. we're guilty. but we are the stupid criminals. we're the guys who got caught. that's why we're here. we are also the small fry. the big fry never get caught. the big fry are out there. and in fact the big fry aren't even pursued by the system because they run the system. they have connections within the system that protect them. and so this got me thinking. because for 25 areas, i looked at american politics as a kind of debate. we are the conservatives and we believe this, and the lib'lls believe that and the republicans
for equality of rights and the dem contracts are for equality of outcomes and blah blah blah. it is the view of the criminal underclass this whole way of thinking about american politics is total and complete nonsense. why? because human nature isn't motivated that way. human nature is not motivated by an urge to debate. humanhuman beings are actually motivated by inquisitive enough and greed and lust and rage and anger and hatred and revenge, and if these motives actually drive human life, why should politics be immune or exempt? in other words, we need a wider angle of struggle see politics and its full motives, a motive that is not idea yaistic but realistic. whoa do the clinch top decide what they do? what motivates obama? i'd like to talk about that
briefly this morning. i'll begin by talking about the democratic party. now, i'm a creature of the reagan revolution. and in fact reagan used to say in the '80s, i didn't leave the democratic party. it left me. it left me. now, you get the idea from this the democratic party was actually a good party. it was actually humming along pretty well until maybe the late '60s or the mcgovern campaign when it went off the rails. it left him. but i regret to say that this is one area where in a way reagan was wrong. and what i mean by that is an adult life later, as i gap to dig into the subject and began to research it, i began to realize that, no, the democratic party has actually had a sordid
drain that has defined this party from the very beginning. from the very beginning. and the rope we don't know about it -- the reason we don't know about it, reagan didn't know about it, is because of the success of progressive history iography. the progressives have been ingenious as covering their tracks. and i'll start by giving a small example of this because it actually per tapes to a horrific event of the 20th century, the holocaust. in the 1930s, the democratic party was fascinated not only by fascism but also by naziism. they liked it. and if this seems a little unbelievable, young john f. kennedy went to nazi germany in the '30s, and came back super excited about hitler, in fact full of praise of hitler. called him a lem general.
he goes there are people who don't like hitler but they're gel rouse of him. he said the nazis claim be to superior and that the nordic people are better than everybody else and the goes, that's because they are. because they are. this is jfk. and by the way, i should tell you that nothing i'm about to say this morning is controversial in the sense of its debated whether it occurred. you can actually google jfk nazi germany 1930s on your phone and in 30 seconds you'll see that what just said to you is true. fdr was ennationallorred by mussolini. fdr dispatched members of his brain trust to go to italy to study italian fascism because thought it was more progressive than the new deal, and he thought that he could import ideas from italian fascism here to america. this was not a one-way fascination. it was actually a mutual
admiration society. mussolini reviewed fdrs book, in an italian magazine. he loved it. he goes, my conclusion upon reading this book is this guy is one of us, fascist. this is mussolini. now, after world war ii, progressive historians looked at all this and went, whoa. fascism now carries the order of the holocaust, that gas chambers, dachau. we can't have this kind of stuff in the textbooks. young people may find out about it. let's make sure we prudently leave it out. we're not going lie about it. we're just not going to say anything about it. so this is a small but telling example of a way in which two of the great progressive figures of the 20 numb century, jfk and fdr have been, you may say, protected, protected, by the
progressive left. let's continue with fdr for a moment. because fdr, when he was elected, wanted to push through the new deal. but it was difficult to push through the new deal because he needed the support of other democrats, and the democratic party in fdr's time was racist to the core. racist to the core. fdr needed the racist democrats to get the new deal through. so he goes to the racist democrats and he basically says, please support the new dole. i'll give you all kinds of benefits. we'll bid the tennessee valley project in your neighborhood and so on. but the racist democrats said that's not enough. we'll vote for the new deal if you, fdr, agree to block all antilynching laws that are proposed by the republicans. fdr agrees. the racist democrats say in addition to that, we want to make sure that the two main
occupations that blacks are in, namely domestic service and agricultural labor, are excluded from most new deal programs. no new deal for blacks. fdr agrees again. so here is the progressive hero of the 20th century, completely in bed with the worst racists in america who were a critical part of getting his new deal through. once again, this is a fact. a fact. now, let's back up and take in the big picture, because the big picture can besmeared as follows. the democratic party -- who founded it? that's a mystery. who started this democratic party? we know that abraham lincoln was kind of the founder of the republican party. who started the democratic party? you'll say man it was fdr. no. there was a democratic party in the 19th century.
maybe it was thomas jefferson. no, it wasn't jefferson. jefferson's party was called the democratic republican party and it split and later became the democratic party, later the republican party. so an andrew jackson was the founder of the democratic party. andrew jackson is a controversial figure. he is controversial because of his indian wars. he was known as kind of a savage indian fighter. but i want to highlight a side of andrew jackson hases never talked about. the there are whole biographies that never mention this. that is andrew jackson, as somebody who figured out how to profit greatly from public policy. profit from public policy. so here's what jackson would do he would be getting ready to have a fight with the indians and drive them off their land and push them further west, and the whole idea was this land
would then be auctioned off to settlers. but since andrew jackson knew which land was going to become available, before the fight, he would send in his private surveyors who would determine the value of that land, which would then be reported privately to him. he would then contact his buddies who were investors, and those guys would bid on the land before it even became available for sale. in fact they would bid on the lap be of the indians had been thrown off the land. in this way, andrew jackson went from, to use a phrase from hillary clinton, dead broke, to becoming one of the richest men in the country. he was worth in today's money over $100 million and took this money and the bought himself a big slave plantation in tennessee. now, why die tell you this? because the roots of the clinton foundation can be found in the land stealing policies andrew jackson. this stuff we see today in which
the clintons are able to, you may say, market policy -- think for a moment about the clintons, if i can fast forward a little bit here. the clintons -- well, hillary was derided for saying she was dead broke about it is true they didn't come into politics with money. he have had presidents who were rich. fdr was rich. jfk was rich. but they were rich before. the clintons came interest politics and didn't have a whole lot of money. how too you go from zero to $300 million on a government salary? how do you do senate how does your foundation accumulate a total of $3 billion when you haven't done anything? you didn't invent the iphone. you didn't start a business. how do you do that? is there even a plausible way to imagine how that could legitimately occur? no. no.
in other words, what we're dealing with here is crookery. we're dealing with people who have learned how to market policy for private benefit. now, back to the democratic party so i can lay a context for this. the democratic party began not only as the party of indian relocation, but as the party of slavery. this requires a moment's explanation because clearly democrats didn't invent slavery. slavery has been around since the dawn of mankind. what the democrats invented is something called the positive good school of slavery. the democrats invented the idea that slavery is good, not merely for the master, but also for the slave. this is kind of unbelievable. historically people who defended slavery, said slavery is a function of regrettable necessary tim there's dirty work to be done, someone has to do
it. that's why we have slaves. the democrats came up with the idea that slavery benefits the slave. and i say this because there is an echo today in the way that democrats run when i'm going to call urban plantations. on the same rationale. urban plantations ben this those who live on the plantation. the echo of she alivery argument of the 19th century. how to to the democrats defended slavery consistently and the civil war is understood better as a fight, not between the north and the south, but between the pro slavery democratic party and the antislavery republican party. we think of the civil war as a north-south fight. and madingly this way of thinking about it is a self-tryout for progressive historiographyy.
the progressives tike their own crimes their crimes of the democratic party and said, let's blame the south. let get it off ourselves by making the south a beside guy. let's make the civil war the antislavery north and the pro slavery south. but right away, if you pause you think, wait a minute. this most southerners own slaves? no. three-quarters of the fem people who fight on the confederate side of the two did not own a slave. by the same token the northern democrats protected slavery with the same aggressive enthusiasm as the southern democrats. the slavery wasn't a southern thing. the northern democrats were covering for it, too. so right away you see the north-south divide, -- i'm not denying that but seem saying the actual tarringment was between the two parties. after slavery the democratic party was in a funk. they had lost their biggest
stealing project, and i say stealing project because slavery is theft. slavery is theft. lincoln called it you work, i e. i eat. you are stealing a man for his whole life. after slavery the democrats came up with new stuff. segregation, jim crow, lynching, and the klu klux klan. those are four landmark democratic party policies after slavery. now, again, it may seem like that's gist exaggerating segregation. wait a minute. every segregation law, without exception, was passed bay democratic legislature and signed by a dem break governor there is no exception to this rule. the klan was founded by nathan bedford, a del contracted to the democratic national convention, and for 30 years the klu klux klan served as the domestic terrorist arm of the democratic
party. this is not my way of putting it. the progressive historian, eric phoner -- i'm quoting from from a block on reconstruction. the klan had a revival in the early 20th century on account of woodrow wilson, who showed a pro klu klux klan movie in the white house called "birth of a nation." that revived the klan in the south but also in the midwest and the west. in the 20th century the democrats became the party or force erred steal usingize, eugenics and social darwinism, and later, later, progressivism became -- it changed into a new kind of scam. now, i messenger evidence earlier about fashion such and how the progressives covered their tracks. the great genius of progressive historiographyy has been to take the crimes of the democratic
party and blame them on the south or the republican party or america. you saw this with corey booker a couple of days ago in philadelphia. he goes, america was responsible for slavery. and segregation. and jim crow. et cetera, et cetera. no. america would wasn't responsible for those things. if america did those things it would still be going on. some americans did those things and other americans stopped them. who did them? the democrats. the democratic party so the genius of progressive story-telling is to take all the bad stuff that we did and blame on america. and then present yourself as the solution to it. it's kind of like poisoning the well and then showing up claiming to be the water commissioner. now, how can anybody get away with this? how can you pull off an intellectual scam of this
magnitude that is so comprehensive you can even fool reagan and the -- a whole bunch of other people. how do you pull this off? basically you need to control three institutions. academic ya, hollywood, and the media. those are the the biggest megaphones of our culture. and if you dominate those, there's a whole bunch of prop gap da you can put out and there's no one around with a volz loud enough to say different. it's so successful that people the people who are your opponents believe and it come to accept it. the democrats are kind of like lawyers who make make a legal defense. the first loan of the defense is, my client was nowhere on the scene of the crime. this is pure denial. but then when evidence is produced that your clean was up mistake blue on the keen of the
crime you go, he was on the scene of the crime but didn't own a gun. then when you provide that not only did he own a gun but at the hullty lulled at the trilogier, the democrat goes, yes, before the that was in self-defense. so the last line of democratic defense against this indictment, which is irrefutable, when they're absolutely up against the wall, is called the big switch. the big switch. the most important intellectual task done by this movie, holiday hillary's america "and my accompanying book of the same title is to debunk and destroy the myth of the big switch. what is the big switch? the basic idea is, well, gee, now that you have kind of got the goods on us we admit we did all this bad stuff, but just kind of the last minute, we changed. we democrats saw the light and
became the good guys, and all the racists became republicans. this is the big switch. now, this is a very cunning argument because on the surface, it appears to be supported by two moment toous facts. the first fact is that blacks who used to vote republican, do in fact vote democrat and this would seem to support the idea there must have ban switch. don't blacks know who their friends are? don't blacks realize their friends or the democrats? why else would they switch? number two, southern whites who used to be democratic, have now in fact become largely republican. so that, too appears to corroborate the notion of the big switch. i want to tell you why the big switch is a big lie. first of all, let's start with blacks. blacks did switch.
but not because of race. when did black switch from being republicans to being democrats? they switched during the era of the new deal. the new deal. why? because their conditions were economically desperate, they were bribed into doing it. the blacks who switched knew that they were leaving the party of lincoln and emancipation and joining the party of segregation and the klu klux klan. but they did it anyway. now, i don't blame them because conditions in the depression were terrible. but long-term this has proven to be a really bad deal for blacks. i'll come to that in a minute. i now want to turn to southern whites enwhen did whites such from the democratic party to the republican party? they actually switched between the 1970s and the 1990s.
why? the reason that southern whites switch is not because of racism, but it was because of the decline of racism. in other words if you look at survey data you can see that racism is declining dramatically in the south in the second half of the 20th century. so as the south becomes less racist, it becomes more republican. you can just chart those two things and you can see that there's an inverse connection between, as racism goes down in the south, the republicanism of the south becomes stronger. ...
>> he was pretty much the only one. you can make a list of dozens, if not hundreds of racist dixiecrats. you can do this very easily yourself, and you will see the vast, vast majority of them remained in the democratic party. they felt more comfortable in the party of bigotry than they would in the republican party. this is a fact. so the big switch is bogus. well, but didn't richard nixon have a southern strategy? no. richard nixon did not have a southern strategy, and if he had a southern strategy, it didn't work, because the deep south went for wallace. wallace is the guy whose slogan was segregation today,
segregation tomorrow, segregation forever. i don't have to tell you that wallace was a democrat. he carried the deep south, not nixon. now, this may all seem like i'm fighting about history, but it's very important history. why? because the moral capital of the democratic party comes from the idea that the democratic party are the good guys. they're the good guys. they've always been the good guys. they've always been fighting for the little guy and the immigrants and latinos and blacks. in fact, they have been an anti-immigrant party from the beginning, they have been the enslavers and tormenters and lynchers and murderers of blacks. and you might say, what about today? what about today? i was in philadelphia a couple days ago kind of trolling the democratic convention. and then i decided to take a
walk. and about a mile away, you see a very interesting sight. a real contrast with the glitz of the convention. and that sight is i'm going to call it the urban plantation. the urban plantation. now, this may seem like a little bit, dinesh, you know, you're being a little bit strong here. plantations? are you comparing the old slave plantation to what's happening in inner city philadelphia? actually, yes. let's look at the features of the old slave plantation. i'm going to mention five. and i draw this from the historian kenneth stamp in his book on the plantation called "the peculiar institution." so kenneth stamp points out that on the old slave plantation, we had ramshackle dwellings. in other words, rundown living quarters called slave quarters, number one. number two, a family structure in complete disarray.
obviously, children could be bought and sold under slavery, so the family structure was in ruin, a lot of illegitimacy on the plantation, mulattos running around. number two with, family disintegration. number three, a high degree of violence needed to keep the place intact. why? slavery is based on force. you have to force people to work. it's not easy to do that if you don't have whips, if you don't have the display of actual force. four, everybody has a meager provision. so you basically have food. if you get sick, they call the doctor. you have health care. i don't think they called it obamacare in those days. but there's no opportunity. nobody gets ahead. everybody's stuck where they are, and there is no advancement. no education. and nihilism, hopelessness, despair. so now i ask you, is it not a
fact that if we walked today through inner city oakland, detroit, chicago, philadelphia, dallas that you see exactly the same features today? the rural plantation and its characteristics have been transplanted. and this is particularly interesting since the same party -- and, in effect, the same people -- are running both. the difference is that in the old days the democrats were stealing people's labor, and today their only interest in these people is their votes. that's all they want. that's all that they care about. and, in fact, they have a vested interest that those people's lives never get better. never get better. trillions of dollars have been spent to fix these places, they never get fixed. they're about where they were in 1968. how is this possible? in fact, anytime someone wants to gentrify the inner city,
high-tech companies come and go, listen, we're going to create lofts, we're going to create new living spaces, starbucks will come in, everything will be safe, there'll be a lot of new ladders of opportunity. the progressives fight it tooth and nail. they fight gentrification, why? because if you give people ladders of opportunity, they have no further reason to want to be democrats, and the democratic party knows that. so, the point i'm trying to make -- and i'll kind of wrap it up here -- history is not dead. people say we need to know history so we don't repeat them. no. you need to know history because you're living it. history is with us today. the echoes of the past are in the present. for most of my career, i was a writer and speaker. the reason i've gone into making movies is movies appeal to the head and the heart. movies are way to reach a wider audience. finish -- movies have the potential of recreating and
telling stories that people can see and identify with. and yet if you see the movie and it takes all kinds of extraordinary claims and you go, what? and a lot of people go, what. they're substantiated in my book. i say in the film, for example, i have this line which has caused a lot of people's jaws to drop, that in 1860, the year of the civil war, no republican owned a slave. none. all the slaves in the entire country were owned by democrats. and, again, people go, is this -- are you serious? is this really true? it is true. the left-wing critics are thrashing around trying to scream at the movie, scream at the book. they can't find one little fact in the entire movie or the entire book that they can even plausibly dispute, let alone refute. they can't do it. and so they engage in their usual rhetoric, this is paranoid, it's delusional, blah,
blah, blah. it's just a squid-like cloud of empty rhetoric. and me? i love it. i love this stuff. because i love seeing my opponents thrashing around helplessly, looking for weapons and not being able to find any. so i urge you, as young people, to learn and to, and to equip yourselves and become very dangerous americans. our times demand it. normally we don't need it. in fact, normally we don't even need to know about the founding that much. we have a great country. it's kind of like your house. you don't need to know the blueprints of your house. you just sleep on the couch, walk in the hallways. it's only when your house begins to shake that you say, hey, i better get up in the attic, i better figure out how this thing was put together. we are living in such a time. and so i want to encourage you to be smart, strategic, creative
and brave. aristotle says that bravery is the most important, courage, the most important of all the virtues because it takes courage to carry out all the other virtues. and that is very much needed today. creativity, knowledge and bravery. and armed with those things, we can help america, we can restore america, we can save america. this has been a very bad obama period we've been living through. american influence is down, obama's doubled the national debt. hillary, i think, is even worse. hillary, i think, is worse than obama because obama's at least ideological. he has a goal. you may not agree with the goal, but his goal is principled. he has a direction he wants to take america, to remake america. the clintons are bonnie and clyde. they've been running rackets since the arkansas days. when they were in the white house, they were representing out the lincoln bedroom for
money, taking stuff off the walls, later forced to return it. selling pardons to the bigtime racketeers, felons and criminals. and then on to the clinton foundation. i mean, my gosh. we've had corruption in politics before, tammany hall in new york, the daily racket in chicago. we've -- daley racket in chicago. we've never had a secretary of state who's figured out how to make money on foreign policy by collecting money from canadian billionaires who want mineral rights, by intercepting aid money, for god's sake, intended for earthquake relief in haiti. it doesn't get to haiti. it gets to the coffers of the clintons, and haitians are standing outside the clinton foundation, tell me, bill, tell me, hillary, where's the haiti earthquake money? and this is going on. and the media is not to be seen. why? because this is super embarrassing. it's one thing for democrats to rob from the rich, that's kind of an accomplishment.
but robbing from the poor, that carries a certainties taste with it. and so -- certain distastes with it. so let's kind of leave that off the news. let's not highlight that one. it's not going to make our gal look all that good. this is our predicament. this is our time. our generation, the reagan generation, is handing the baton to yours. may you be worthy of it. thank you very much. [applause] we have a few minutes for questions, and i'll be delighted to answer a few. if you're short, i'll be able to take a lot of them. go for it. >> hi, dinesh, my name sl stephen hayes, i go -- stephen hayes, i go to the university of colorado. what do you expect hillary clinton to focus on in her speech tonight? >> tonight i think hillary will focus on the fact that the democrats have always been the
party of civil rights and human rights and women. she will claim the historic mantle of being a historic first. i mean, i think it is -- she will be kind of a historic first. we've never had a female mob boss run this country, so she would be a historic first. no. we'll hear the usual dog and pony show, and our movie actually directly contradicts it. so i'm looking forward to hillary. she's going to give you the official story, and then "hillary's america" is going to give the real story. >> thanks. >> yes. >> trevor, university of nebraska-kearney, found all this super riveting and interesting. my question is, do you see this trend in the education system ever changing back to a more, i guess, true historical narrative? and if so, are there any specific educational policies you would advocate in order to see that change in public education education?
>> thirty years ago as progressives dominated the universities, conservatives had almost no responsebe because it's -- response because it's not enough to send enough to dinesh to -- not enough to send dinesh to campus. the beauty today is because of technology and because of other means of delivering information, movies being one of them, the disinfectant of truth and facts is crushing. it's crushing. because in some ways precisely because the left has been hiding so much and sweeping it under the rug, that's what gives emotional power to my movie. imagine if everybody already knew this stuff. they'd be like, hoe hum, tell us -- ho-hum, tell us something we don't know. it's been kept from you. and once it's out there, it's kind of a challenge. i've put down the gauntlet. okay, if i'm wrong, show me. and i'm still waiting. and i'll be waiting a long time from now.
so today facts are very powerful be, but we have to creatively deploy them. if i just wrote it in an op-ed, no one would see it. but by sticking it on 1200 screens around the country, it's a little hard to ignore. >> thank you. >> okay? >> hi. my name is doyle, i'm a rising freshman at hillsdale college, and my question was based on not so long ago in my home state of georgia, it became a republican-tilting state as a result of some conservative democrats in my state switching to the republican party which solidified republican control of the state legislature. now, the left still uses that party-switching as a result of republicans being racist. how can we refute that? >> the refutation is in a book by byron schafer and richard johnston called "the end of southern exceptionalism." it actually looks to see, it divides the south into the most racist people and the non-racists, and it shows the most racist people never switched.
in fact, they felt comfortable staying in the democratic party. the non-racists in the south moved over to the republican party because of economic opportunity. remember that racism was a technique to provide psychic consolation to the poor white man. it was a way of saying to the poor white man, your life sucks. but the good news is you belong to this exclusive club called for whites only. so that even though you're unbelievably stupid and you're unbelievably unsuccessful, we are still going to put you on a totem pole that is higher than the most educated black man. this was democratic party political strategy for more than half a century in the 20th century. that's why the democrats held the poor whites. that's why the poor whites never left the democratic party. so it's important to fight this big switch nonsense, because it's the last out for the left. but there is no out, because the evidence is the other way, and it's important more you to be familiar with. so get the byron schafer/richard
johnston book, get my book. together the two are kind of like one of those muhammad ali one-two punches. be really helpful. yes. >> hi, i'm from george washington university, and with the whole e-mail scandal and the fbi declining to recommend indictment against crooked hillary, it seems the system is rigged. what can we do specifically to get back to the rule of law? >> number one, you have to expose the kernel of what's going on. i mean, look what these recent scandals show. number one, the democrats, the party called democrats are rigging their own elections. unbelievable. they're running a soviet-style election in america. right? amazing. number two, when you listen to the private conversation of democrats, you realize that the party of racism hasn't changed all that much. their hispanic initiative, they call it the taco bell initiative. they make all kinds of fun of blacks, homosexuals, they want to use the bernie sanders' alleged atheism against him.
this is a party in its actual private, you may say uncensored speech. so imagine, i mean, if this was trump and the republicans, the media would be so all over this. as it is, it's once again a progressive embarrassment that the people at npr, the people at abc, cbs, "the new york times," they view their job, this is their job. how do we cover it up. how do we minimize it. we can't deny it, but how do we make it a no big deal somehow do we make it kind of a let's move on? this is how these people think. that's why it's very important for you as young people to think how can i influence the institutions of media, hollywood, comedy and academia, because we can't allow the left to continue its current monopoly in those areas. yes. >> hello. my name is marlene that, and i'm from connecticut. i recently saw "hillary's america," and it was amazing. one of the questions that came
to mind when i was watching it was how did you do this, you know? most of the movies in theaters, everything in hollywood is, has a bias, the liberal bias. so my question really is was there any resistance from the democratic side, from the government when getting your movie in theaters? you know, i mean, you really did expose the true side of the democratic party and the evils that they do. >> so the left, it was a pleasant discovery for me that the left controls hollywood, which is movie production, but it doesn't control movie distribution. the movie distribution is completely different. so bilal lying ourselves with the -- by allying ourselves with the distributers, ie, the people who own the big theater chains, i went to them and and they said, look, dinesh, if you can get people line up around the block, we're happy to put your movie in our theaters. and that's all i needed to hear. we're not part of hollywood. we filmed this whole movie in dallas.
and this keeps us outside the influence of hollywood people to be able to torpedo us. now, the moment the movie comes out 300 critics are deployed to destroy it, and they'll go, and they will absolutely trash the movie. happily, most of these people are sort of ignore ramuses. they're full of hatred, but they don't know anything. so fighting against me is actually, i mean, 300 to 1 is pretty good odds for me just in terms of knowledge. i'm to not saying there aren't progressives who are smart. believe me, they will ultimately deploy powerful historians from britain mar and -- bryn mawr or and harvard and stanford to go after the book, and i'm ready for that. the point is in the beginning it's all of these ridiculous people writing with out of greenwich village, and they just come up with really big words that impress themselves. so we'll get 5% in rotten tomatoes, but then we'll get 90% from the audiences. audiences love the movie.
and so the effort to block this movie has not worked, it isn't working, and i think we've shown a path that other conservatives can follow. the important thing to make -- realize about movies is you don't make movies to do messaging. michael moore knows this. it's one of the few things he does know. people go to the movies for fun. you make an entertaining movie, you can do a lot of messaging. you try to make a movie -- people always say to me, make a movie on obamacare, on immigration. no. you have to make a movie that actually has drama, that has plot, narrative, character, suspense. this movie's a thriller because hillary's involved, there are elements of horror. it's a little bit of a horror movie. [laughter] but we don't leave people depressed. [applause] >> hi, my name'salton stephens, i'm from coastal carolina university. i was just wondering if you see a bright future for attracting more minorities back into the republican party.
how do you see that happening, if so? >> the -- two things are going on. one is minorities and particularly blacks have been sold a storyline. the storyline is the republican party is the party of bigotry. so it's important to correct that perception, show the republican party is actually the party of emancipation, anti-lynching, anti-segregation. the republican party's actually fought for immigrants and for blacks and for the minorities for the vast majority of its history. number two, the way that the democrats hold blacks, i thought of it myself when i came at the age of 17 to america, you feel a sense of vertigo when you come to a new country. it's scary. you don't know anyone. you have no family, no credit, you're making your way in a new land. so the republican party says climb up the ladder of opportunity, but you don't know how to climb. you don't know where that ladder even is.
and then the democrats come to you and say, listen, you don't need a ladder. we are standing on the top of the building, we'll let down a rope. you hang onto the rope. hanging on is easier than climbing. we'll pull you up. and the thing that blacks and hispanics and immigrants don't realize is the democrats have no intention of pulling you all the way up. their idea is to pull you a little way up and hold. and hold. why? because then you are us -- suspended in permanent dependency. if you actually climbed up, you'd scramble dust off your feet and walk off. they can't have that. they've got to have it where you're dependent on the rope, where you know that if they let go, down they go. and that keeps them tied to the democratic party. it's a form, it's a new form of servitude that's going on in america, except it's a much subtler form of serve tuesday than the good old thrash 'em and keep 'em down on the plantation
approach of the old democratic party. we need to expose the urban plantation, and that's where you strip away the moral capital of the progressive democrats. yes, sir. >> good morning, dinesh. it's an honor to have you speaking here at this convention. i just was hoping that maybe you could elaborate a little bit more about your experience, you know, when you were imprisoned essentially by the left, being so vocal as you are, and how that impacted your i view of progressivism and the left. >> well, prison is -- i wasn't in real prison. i was in this confinement center, but it was kind of prison. and, you see, first of all, even as a conservative it makes you open your eyes. because i'm very up on america, but i'm not so up on the way things are done by government. if you had asked me when i was young that 95percent of all
people accused of a federal crime plead guilty, i would have said, yeah, because most of them did it. that's why they plead guilty. the government is right to go after them. now that i know more, i realize that's not the case. the government has ways of making innocent people plead guilty. it's unbelievable. essentially, it's the plea bargain system. they come to a doctor. let's say they want to get a doctor. he's done nothing wrong. our federal statutes are so voluminous and accordion-like that they can find something if not from your tax return, they'll find something like didn't you administer pain medicine to mrs. smith? we're going to charge you with the illegal administration of illegal drugs. and you say, but she was in pain, i'm a doctor. they go, i know, but you exceeded the allowable dose of pain medicine. we're going to charge you with a crime that will put you away for five years. but you plead guilty, you'll get three months, and you can practice medicine again. so what's your choice? ruin your entire life, be known
as a federal criminal, be locked up for five years and destroy your relationships with your friends, undermine your family? or take a plea. this is the strong-arm tactic that is routinely used. i used to believe better that nine guilty men go free and one innocent one be locked up? it clears your mind of a duy-eyed view of the world. our countries are run by gangs. and we like to believe it's totally different here. it is different, but it's not totally different. so this, these experienced are eye-opening for me. i think it's given my conservativism a grittier, which is to say a more solid foundation. guys, thank you for your attention. see the movie. it's a secret of movies that the fate of a movie depends on how the movie does in the opening couple of weeks. if a movie does well at
beginning, it spreads out. people say how do i get your movie seen by independents. you want to know how? go see it this week or this weekend. you're putting fuel into our rocket. part of what you should learn is to use your influence. most of us use very little of our actual influence. you say, well, i only have 300 friends on facebook. yeah, but they've got 300 friends on facebook. so today you're like a little publisher, and if you get information out, you're actually able to change the way that people think. the beauty of a movie, you can watch a movie in 90 minutes, and it changes you a little on the inside. movies have the power to do that. and books have a power to change minds by providing information, and information in our era is power. so once again, i urge you to be not apathetic, but very dangerous americans. go out there and change society
and help save your country. thank you very much. [applause] >> this is booktv on c-span2, television for serious readers. here's our prime time lineup. tonight, beginning at 7:30, we'll bring you a discussion on race in america featuring princeton university professor eddie glaude, white house correspondent april ryan, and economist julianne malveaux. on our weekly "after words" program starting at nine eastern, ann coulter weighs in on why donald trump should be president. she's joined in conversation by the daily caller's tucker carlson. at 10 p.m. former twitter or adviser and facebook product manager app tone owe -- antonio garcia martinez provides an inside look at silicon valley. and that's followed at 11 with nicholas irving who remembers his sniper or missions in iraq and afghanistan. we wrap up at 11:30 eastern tonight with senator dick durbin