>> senate confirmation hearings for brett kavanaugh to be a supreme court justice are expected in september. and they are likely to question him about grover way -- about roe v. wade. on tuesday, c-span's landmark cases presented in-depth look at roe v. wade. we will also hear from los angeles time supreme court reporter discussing his nomination and the abortion issue. >> last week and the young america's foundation hosted its annual student conference in washington dc. this portion featured remarks by political commentator dinesh to souza.-- dinesh d' this is an hour. >> he served as a speaker for the american foundation for

generations of students and he is in exclusive lecturer with the foundation as well. speakers of the many the foundation will bring to your campus. please welcome dinesh d'souza to the stage. [laughter] --[applause] dinesh: how's it going? howdy. hey, how's it going? hello. how's it going? thank you. thank you very much.

i'm really thrilled and honored to be here. this is the premier student organization on the campus. delighted to have this long-time association with young america's foundation. this couldn't be a more exciting moment. i'm just as excited when i got the call from president trump pardoning me. that was awesome. [applause] it wasn't just that i got the pardon, it was a very trump ian way he did it. he said, you know john kelly. no, i don't know john kelly. i know who he is. i have to tell you

man-to-man, you got screwed. i didn't know what to say to that. thrilling, it gives me my american dream back. trump says he wants to unleash you in a new way, you have been a champion for american freedom. here i am unchained and unleashed. [applause] first of all, the title, death of a nation. it's an allusion to a movie that was released almost 100 years ago exactly. 1915 the progressive will -- the progressive democrat screened a movie in the white house, called birth of a nation.

it is distinguished by a fact that the movie's hero is of the ku klux klan. it's a racist movie shown by racist president. we have an interesting phenomenon to deal with, progressive racism. we don't get taught that. yet it would not be an exaggeration to say progressives and democrats invented racism. historically the democratic party was the party of the slave plantation. they were unified around slavery. and seven democrats were in this together. when lincoln identified what he called the four bad guys of slavery, the four horsemen of the apocalypse, he was from maryland.

lincoln counts him as a seven or. then james buchanan, in northern or. then stephen douglas. the northern democrats were driving the proslavery debate in the democratic camps. is -- the secession debate was north-south but the slavery debate was between the proslavery democratic party and the anti-slavery democratic party. that's a fact. it's so crushing that sometimes when i speak on campus, this is a familiar thing that happens.

inevitably some professor of romance languages will stand up and say you are being a tad simplistic here. you're pointing the finger of blame at the democratic party. but you have to realize there is a lot of blame to go around. when i hear this typical cloud of rhetoric i try to find a way to dissipated. in 1860, no republican owned a slave. owned aepublican leader slave, but no republican in the united states owned a slave. all the slaves of the entire country were owned by democrats. it is a scientific statement.

all you have to do is give me the name of one republican who owns a slave. to this date no valid counterexample has been produced. a few months ago about an email from a guy. ulysses s grant inherited the slaves on his wife's side. a solitary slave. i said that's what i call an almost touche. did in fact inherit a slave on his wife's aside. by the time it happened, ulysses s. grant was a democrat. only later did he move over to the republican camp. when slavery ended the democratic party, it is organized around slavery. the democrats will worry they

will go the way of the waste, they will become a nonexistent , they way of the whigs will become a nonexistent political party. if we can't organize around saint -- around slavery, let's organize around white supremacy. from the democrats point of view america was being born anew. notrgument is it is philosophy. it killed -- it will kill america. you can kill a country another way. you don't have to shoot them.

by the way this is what a judge was trying to do to me. he was kind of hoping i would undergo the psychological reevaluation. my point is if you strip away a person's personality and a moral compass, leaders are the same. it's still dinesh, but you've killed him on the inside. you can kill a country by destroying what makes it unique. we want to strip away the principles of the american founding, if we want to make america unrecognizable from what it was today, we will kill america. that's what the progressive left intends to do. poster which movie morphs the heads of trump and lincoln.

this causes the left to freak out. freaking out as an operating move in the trump era. they freak out. of progressive overgrown infants -- what are you saying? i'm not saying trump and lincoln are the same guy. i'm not even comparing them as men. they are very different. trump is, you may say, a different kind of guy. marches to his own drama and he is very different from reagan. reagan believed you could change the world into, maybe three ways. statesmanlike priorities to focus on the soviet empire, reducing taxes, central america.

trump is literally a guy who is manic. the court in trying to push tax reform through. at the same time he's doing all this political manic energy he's taking on low rating cnn. a guy who is fighting on the political and cultural fund -- cultural front. situations in which the two men found themselves is actually eerily similar. an outsider, republican, first republican, lincoln wins the election. election and deal may reason he wanted it is he was the democrat in the race. and what happens? all hell breaks loose.

plunge the dagger into him. that eventually happens. and the democrats are so unwilling to a by dish to abide by a lincoln presidency -- let's break up a country if we have to. this is the craziness that is going on now. people say he is so extreme, he is this, he is that. trump is not extreme, he is the product of a political extremism that brought us to this point. words, we are unfortunately not living in the reagan era anymore. wish we were. i wish this was an era of general and politics.

supposed to be gentlemen when the other side has become gangster rise to that has become gangster -- has become gangsterized. that's not the america we live in now. if reagan were alive today he would be heartbroken. reagan counted on a certain kind of civility. reagan and tip o'neill would joke. they disagree politically but they got along. that america back, but the question is how to we get it back? democrats from doing what they're doing to us if we don't threaten to do it to them. example,ve an extreme a game to the attention of abraham lincoln early in the as soon as black

soldiers began to fight in the union army that the confederacy upon apprehending union black soldiers would summarily execute them. not white soldiers, the black soldiers would be killed. lincoln issued an executive order, which i consider to be he said forbaric, every black union soldier that is shot by the confederacy, one confederate soldier will be summarily executed. it is an order of almost unimaginable barbarity. lincoln did realize how do we get them to stop? the only way to get them to stop is to do them what they are doing to us. similarly now, how can we actually deal with the gangsters on the left?

bob dole, mitt romney, john mccain. unbelievably clean-cut guys. mitt romney's resume is probably the most impressive since jesus christ. as soon as he steps on the public stage, within 15 minutes they have made them and to lucifer. how? mitt romney, you are a greedy capitalist, you got billions of dollars that you got stealing off of the backs of hard-working people. he doesn't know what to say. this is republican gentility. you go to trump, no one even tries this. you got too much money, he go sit down. you are misinformed, i have a lot more money than you think. it kind of doesn't work. it doesn't work.

the left is not entirely enthusiastic about the book and movie. now, that is what i would call on'sretarded more on -- mor description of my movie. i do not claim that. [applause] dinesh: hillary was not a liberal. hoefler -- itler was not a liberal, not a democrat. here is what i do say, and it is 10 times more crushing. the washington post article writers do not have the guts to say it because they cannot defend it. what i do say is that the nazis and hitler got some of genocidalisgusting

schemes from the progressives and democratic party. a couple of things strike about this. i will give an example, and we shall does in the movie. the senior nazis drafting the nuremberg laws, the laws that make juice into second-class citizens. and theysitting there, have in their hands the democratic laws of the jim crow. it is important to realize that every segregation law in the american south was passed by a democratic legislature, signed by a democratic governor, enforced by democratic governors. there is no exception to this rule. you may have not learned this in your textbooks, but the nazis know this, and they hold the laws, and they realize they can just cross out the word black and right in the word jew and they are home free. the nuremberg laws are not parallel to, they are lifted from the democratic party's laws of the mid-20th century.

this is a fact. fact.it is i committed extensively by the illegal scholar , james whitman, in his book. that book should have been --led hitler "'s democratic titled " hitler's democratic model," but instead he blames america. as if all of these crimes from slavery to segregation were done by americans or white people. wait a minute. there were 300 white -- 300,000 white guys that got killed in the civil war who were on the right side, and there were 300,000 white guys were killed in the war who were on the wrong side. obviously, this is not a problem of whiteness. it is a problem of slavery. so here are the nazis using the american laws as their model. in the most delicious and sort of bizarre moment, the nazis have a problem.

they go, we have a problem. before we can enforce these laws jews, wehe juice-= -- have to enforce who is a jew. they realize the democrats have adopted a one drop rule. if you have one drop of black blood, you are black. a single discernible trace of black ancestry makes you black. the nazis look at each other and go, and this is the shocking part, this is too racist, even for us. the nazis think the democrats have gone too far. the one drop rule that is in the nuremberg laws issued in 1935 in jewish, theome this subject is somewhat complex, but in essence, you have to have three jewish grandparents. you have to be 75% jewish. nazis take a softer line in identifying racial identity than the democrats. this "washington post" had summarized what i had said, they

would realize there is no reputation. there is nothing that this reporter could say. in fact, probably hitler heard knowledge of the suspect so deficient, they would not know what to say. they have not read any of the sources that are in my book. this is kind of why i like to release the book with the movie. the movie is a kind of riveting, emotional, and pictorial depiction. there is. there are these german actors, and they are talking in german, and you feel like you are around the table in 1935. what if something goes, where are you getting that? where are you getting those conversations? i am getting them out of the historical transcripts that whitman has excavated. i am actually quoting from the historical records, except, and here is the crusher, that historical record is in, to my knowledge, no high school textbooks, no college textbooks. it has never been on the history channel.it has basically been suppressed by progressive historiography.

you might ask, how is that possible? i mean, we learn a lot about the nazis, the fascists. you turn on msnbc, they are talking about fascism. and so on. how is it possible the press -- to suppress information in this age of information? how can you keep intelligent people from knowing things? here you have to realize that starting in the 1940's but continuing through the 1960's, progressives have increasingly come to dominate revealed, academia, the media, and the entertainment world. that includes broadway, hollywood, music industry, comedians, and so ironically, there are people in america, educated people, who think they know things. don't you know fascism is on the right? i am thinking, you think you know. i know you know nothing, but how do you know the things you do? the answer is something like

this. a professor writes a book. a left-winger at berkeley writes a book, "fascism is on the rise," and 10 of his colleagues go "great book." a review. npr doesn't interview. michael moore makes a documentary. goes,dinary educated guy i don't fascism is on the right because i have seen it everywhere. i went in barnes & noble, there was a book about it. i go to the history channel, i look it up on wikipedia, there is. these are not independent sources. the same bullet has been ricocheting off of 10 walls and is coming back at you. because you see it here and there and everywhere, you think it has to be true. it has to be true. even though it is not true.it is not true . there is a little controversy going on right now about the platformoint

involving donald trump, junior. this is really the outsider's point of view. this sounds it relates to much platform of the democratic party. that is actually the voice of common sense speaking out as you scroll through the platform. yes, there are provisions about jews, but the economic provisions. states control based on health .are, education, religious statement capitalism, which is the clinical economic definition of nazi is an or fascist -- say,m or fascism i said and it is a descriptive the policies of barack obama. why? barack obama, the government greatly increased control over investment companies, banks, the entire health care center, every hospital, every doctor, increasingly the energy sector. hillary and bernie wanted to

expand government control of the energy sector. they are not talking about nationalizing the industries but having them private but quarterbacked by the states. so you have private health insurance companies, but who tells them what to cover? the government. who decides how much to pay? the government. that is statement capitalism in the early 20th century. that was known as fascism. now, i have talked about fascism a little bit. a little more than i wanted to. today, we see fascism and antifa -- in antifa. mussolini would recognize those guys.there is a part of me does not want to taken seriously . these overgrown kids coming out of their mom's basement. hey, mom where is my halloween mom, where isy, my halloween costume? i have to go fight nazis. really? it is when some but he uses the weapons of the state against your political opponents.

that gets you closer to the heart of fascism because the heart of fascism was to identify the party with the state. that is what happened under mussolini. in germany, than not to party alreadyhese -- the nazi became the state. that is what the democrats would like to have. they would like to have you supposedly neutral agencies, the fbi, the cia, the justice department do their political bidding. after our enemies. like them up -- lock them up. so this is fascism or a streak of fascism, and it is not coming from the right. it is coming entirely from the left. now i want to talk a little bit about racism. now, and i want to talk about the democrats's two get out of jail free cards. the democratic party has never acknowledged it is the party of slavery, segregation, jim crow, the ku klux klan, racial terrorism.

that have never acknowledged what the progressives call -- the kkk was for decades, the domestic terrorist home of the democratic party. they have never acknowledged it was the democrats, not republicans, who were the main source of opposition to the civil rights laws in the 1960's. they have never acknowledged that more republicans proportionately voted for those laws than democrats. they have never acknowledged that if the democratic party was the only party in congress, none of those laws, not the civil rights act of 1964, not the voting rights act of 1965, not the bill of 1968, would have passed. they acknowledged men of this, and they lie to you -- they this, ande none of they like to you about it read you about it greedy don't know it because they have not taught you about it. i do not blame you. i blame them but to get out of jail free when you force them to acknowledge it, they will say, h, but the party -- oh, but the

party switch sides driven by tricky richard nixon. the southern strategy. haven't you heard of it? everybody knows the party switch sides. i want to look at that for a moment. did the party switch sides? let's check it out. abraham lincoln in defining slavery says the following. your work, i eat. that is slavery. it is that. you -- it is theft. lincoln said this is the cradle not on the south, but of the democratic party in the north and south, stealing and confiscating the foods of summary else's labor is there thing -- somebody else's labor is their thing. in lincoln's words, the hand that makes the corn has the right to eat the corn. in other words, people have a right to keep the fruits of what they earn. there we go. let's fast forward now 150

years. and i ask you, isn't not a fact that today if the republican party has a single core principle at the middle of it, it is the idea that the hand that makes the corn has the right to put the corn into its own now? that is still what we republicans believe, which means we are the party of lincoln right now. [applause] dinesh: and as for the democrats, yes, as my movie shows, they have gone from one set scheme to another. tryuue. -- true. but at the bottom of what they do, and it is any new form, but wouldn't you agree that the one guyic principle is gets to work and another guy takes the fruits of his labor and disposes of it as the democrats see fit?

even now, the democrats stand for the simple principle, the odious principle, you work, i need. that is the credo, even now. now, next and's southern -- nixon's southern strategies. he supposedly went and courted the votes of the racist deep south, except nobody has ever supplied a single public racist campaign statement by richard nixon. it does not exist. and so progressive historians like kevin kruse of princeton, they go, well, you are kind of over several fine. nixon did not really make any racist thing is, but what he did is some racist dog whistles. dog whistles. i mean, let's think about this. the basic idea is that richard nixon spoke to the southern racists in a kind of code. he made. noises and -- he made dog noises.

on the face of it, this is a little whack. but let's concede it. what are these dog whistles? law and order and drugs. these are code words for racism. youru were talking -- if talking after ferguson, missouri, and so on, you may have an argument. but the big issue was the vietnam war. when nixon said drugs and law and order, he was talking about the lsd smoking hippies like timothy leary, and he was talking about the left-wing rs, the ryaners -- riote people who disrupted the democratic convention. and he was talking about that doctors and lawbreakers who went to canada because they were too cowardly to face the draft. ife and i had my w dinner with bernadine thoren and her husband. last time we checked, they were both white.

nixon was not making a racial appeal at all. when he was elected in 1969 one hours what is one of -- what is one of the first things he did that year? the implement it the affirmative action program. think about it. would a guy who is courting a racist based in the deep south -- does it make any sense to do as one of his first actions to implement legal policies, the beginning of all american affirmative action to discriminate,? that is absurd. nixon lost the deep south. the deep south was actually won by george wallace. what about those racists who supposedly became republicans? when the princeton historian kruse lists them, he is very cunning. he goes, well, of course jesse helms was a democrat.he became a republican . trent lott became a republican.

except none of those three men were dixiecrats. so if you want to have an argument, let's stay on the same plane. in reality, if you make a list of dixiecrats, about 200 of them, governors, senators, congressmen. let's just look at the congress. only one guy switched, strom thurmond. and the entire congress and house, only one person switched, watson. that is two out of 200. the rest of the dixiecrats stayed and died in the democratic party and were lionized in a democratic party. there are buildings and washington, d.c., named after them. that is a fact. so now i turn in conclusion to what i call the democrats's last hope. their refuge. lasthere la -- their

refuge is charlottesville. you could see it. they were delighted with charlottesville. not a tragedy. was killed. that is a tragedy. but they were able to say, hey, there are the neo-nazis and kkk guys in trump hats so now racism is obviously on the right. who can argue with it? there it is on tv. personal, you have to be careful with the on tv argument because a study onever done neo-nazis and whites from assists or a klansman to figure out if they voted for trump. the chris savino date on this point. with tv, you have to realize there is staging going on. at one point, i remember turning on a video in i see this solitary white supremacist, i mean a ridiculous guy, an imbecile. frankly, if he lived in nazi germany, hitler would have sent him to the gas chambers. nevertheless, there he is, and he is supported by 30 reporters. why? that is their point. there is a trumpster.

there is white supremacy. what i do is i look at all the leading white nationalists in america, one by one, and they are all men, mostly men, of the left. jason kessler, the main organizer of charlottesville, obama activist, occupy wall street guy. why would an obama activist, an obama voter, become one? it makes no sense. the press knew this. it is on the southern poverty law center website, but the press suppressed it. why? because it is inconvenient to their narrative. the charlottesville paper interviewed jason kessler's friends. this guy is an atheist. 's girlfriend says, he broke with me because he called me too conservative. the girlfriend was not liberal enough for jason. when i pointed this out on social media, jason kessler

makes a video attacking me, but in the video, he also attacked the rich. pretty obvious the guy is still a leftist. in the movie, you'll see this. you have to see this movie this weekend, by the way. it opens today. quite frankly, if you want to know how to help, see the movie now because the fate of the movie depends on opening weekend. we do well this weekend, our movie will explode into more theaters, reach more people, have more of an impact in november. this movie will make you a very dangerous american. in the movie, i interviewed richard spencer, the poster boy of white supremacy. we released a short clip in the media already. i say to spencer, do you believe all men are created equal? no you believe in individual rights. no. you believe in individual rights? no. where do our rights come from? >> from the state -- from the state.

this is a guy that believes in a large centralized state. there is a string of fascism here because the fascists believe in the all powerful centralized state. i asked him, what do you think of reagan? not a great president. who are your favorite presidents? andrew jackson, polk. they are democrats. well, parties. what do labels matter? here you have this eye-opening narrative unfolding before your eyes. the media is staying away from this. why? it destroys the charlottesville narrative. it exposes them as frauds. it shows the fake news is built on fake history. that is where you come in, because at the end of the day, knowledge is allies of the news of the day. if you want to be a powerful activist now, you need to know something about american history and about american political culture. said theham lincoln

fiery trials through which we pass will light us in honor or dishonor down to the latest generation. and what lincoln means is that at the end of the day, we are in a big fight. that was true of his time. and that is true of our time. it is a fight in which we are necessitys by tragic necessary participants. you have a role to play. your role is to use your influence, to expand your knowledge to become what i sometimes call a very dangerous american. is not inof america inevitability. but it does loom on the horizon unless we act to stop it. i believe we are fully up to the task. won't you join me, if you will, in a campaign, in a crusade, if

i may say so, to save this america we know and love? thank you very much. [applause] dinesh: thank you very much. we have time for questions, and i am delighted to answer some. so let's go. >> hi, dinesh. with character arguments and labels placed on conservatives today like racist, sexist, bigoted, and even nazi, how do you and we are arguing and debating about topics like institutional racism or radical islam, how do we do

it in a way where we are not regarded as racist, sexist? dinesh: the question. how do you fight the racist label? you have to find the underlying scam going on. the underlying scam is that a very leftist democrats who have poisoned the waters are pretending to show up as the water commissioner. they are pretending to be the saviors of the country, the antiracist, so their accusation is an bad fate to start with. do not be intimidated by it. here is the problem. the republican party is so accommodating that we believe the big lies thrown at us. a few years ago, ken mehlman, the former chairman of the rnc, was apologizing for the racist history of the republican party. this guy deserves to be intellectually whipped because the public and hardy has a racist history. it is a must like this. -- the republican party does not have a racist history. it is like this.

a guy comes to steal your car. not only does he avoid that, but he accuses you of stealing the car. that democrats are accusing the people who fought them. don't fall for that nonsense. starting a-- your position should be all the things you described it, your team did so until you repudiate your team as the outside and explain why you did it and remember,for it -- you paid not one penny of restitution for it. you want america to pay, the south to pay, the white man to pay, you want everyone to pay except for the guy who did it, the democratic party. so i would start by hitting back on that front, frontally. do not fall for that nonsense. this is the element of lincolnian coverage. lincoln was wise, but he always allied wisdom to strength. this is an era where political courage is indispensable. unique it on the campus, and i

am confident you have it. camps,ll need it on the and i encourage you have it. >> thank you. [applause] >> hi. my question pertains to something you mentioned in your speech about the southern strategy. the southern strategy has been debunked on our most -- on almost everything level but it is still a talking point by the left. do you blame this on the ignorance of the left, or is it more so a purposeful omission of backwards history? dinesh: well, the southern strategy continues to be a mantra. even if you refuted intellectually, it still sings on. i think that the left cannot afford to have this subject legitimately debated. so take this guy i mentioned a couple of guys. he goes under his desk's and writes the twitter blasts at me, 10 of them, 10 bogus examples. finally i said, look, instead of the twitter squabbling, which is

actually too extensive for the outset person to follow, why don't you and i have a debate? and let's do it on your home campus, where you happy the home turf advantage in front of your students whom you have actually been indoctrinating for years? they will be on your side, at least to start. probably not at the end, but to start. this guy is like, no, i cannot do that. why? not just because he is afraid he will be crushed. i think he has the natural fear. this natural fear when they confront other people who know what they are talking about. not necessarily in the classroom where they reign supreme, but he will not debate. why won't he debate? because even to concede there is an argument is ultimately to force people to listen to both sides. he wants people to just take it on faith that he is right, and he gives a few dubious examples, and all this progressive -- in fact, he has a plaque of progressive historians.

they yell and sheer in robotic applause every night he does this. why? this is how they hope to bludgeon you into agreement. everybody knows. everybody doesn't know. kevin phillips, the suppose it architect of the southern strategy, basically says nixon had a sun belt strategy. he was primed to win the sun belt stretching from florida to california. he wanted the peripheral or upper south. in other words, he wanted the racist south and to get them with an appeal to free markets and capitalism and patriotism. these have only came to the republican party under reagan and then later in the 1990's under gingrich. what was reagan's agenda? patriotism, anti-communist, free market, it was not a racial agenda. that is why the left side tries to peg it all on nixon, because they cannot get reagan. all of these slimy, sneaky, underhanded stuff going on --

trump is all over the news, but nobody is onto fake scholarship yet. that is why my career focuses on unmasking these frauds and challenging them to public debate, but they will not do it because they cannot stand up to the light of truth, so the bottom line of it is do what you can to push the message out. do not be afraid of it. at the end of the day, truth is a deadly weapon. i mean, winston churchill once said about reality that you can do united -- deny it, evade it,.it, it -- it, scored it come but at the end of the day, it is there. >> thank you. [applause] .> hi, mr. dinesh i wanted to say i read all your books, watched your movies. i think all your work is awesome. keep going. don't stop. we got you. but my question is, so as you said, lincoln, heated issue this

thing to execute soldiers. it was apparently that it was barbaric. but now that we are being called these names, homophobic, racist, nazis, in your opinion, do you think we need to result to that and call the democratic party that? or what do you think we should do from here? dinesh: well, i call the democratic party names, but not epithets. my names are actually descriptions. i am actually describing their behavior. and i always support the name-calling with evidence. with evidence. and again, they cannot afford to confront the evidence. one of the things they are scared about with this movie is it is breaking out. it is breaking out into the mainstream. there was a huge article, almost 10,000 words, on me in yahoo! news today. i was interviewed by hbo.

this is what you call a movie breaking out into mainstream, because the left is terrified of that. they want to try to confine the argument to the fringe because they do not want anyone outside of fox news and talk radio to hear about it. this is how they can dominate the discourse and basically bamboozle the american public. so the bottom line of it is i'm very excited about this. by the way, i should say if you want to see the movie, the website, you can enter a zip code and it will tell you where the movie is playing near you. it is in 1000 theaters. i hope it will get to 2000 theaters. can fire a people in the midterms and have a very important cultural impact. hunger -- ok. >> good morning, dinesh. i have a question on the alt-right. i believe that the alt-right is nothing more than liberal dogma with a sprinkle of conservatism. how do we engage people who have

a modicum of conservative values, but really leftism in terms of racial ideology? dinesh: the question is about the alt-right. i dispute the modicum. because he resigned say that because here is what i am saying. -- because here's what i'm saying. when the alt-right rails against thane who are different they are, the alt-right is an umbrella term. you know who i am talking about. the white nationalists. when they do that, there is nothing conservative about that. that is how the progressives talked in the early 20th century. when i was talking to richard spencer, i said, i know who you are. you are essentially a progressive democrat circa 1915. he goes, no, i'm not. how he watched the movie, recommendation? nation?- birds of a

yes. great movie. why do you think that? because they are members of your team. nothing conservative or republican about it. we don't need to go there. the progressive democrats, the white nationalists are being driven by an ideology that was driven by th progressive democrats to make races of the glue that held the democratic party together. >> thank you. >> yes. >> hi, dinesh. you mentioned richard spencer's fascination with andrew jackson. i was wondering what you would say if so it came back and said donald trump has a similar fascination with andrew jackson? dinesh: i would say i need to sit down and have a lengthy conversation with donald trump. donald trump visited the jackson plantation. now you have to realize that ,hese presidential libraries they are a bit of a stage.

i went to see the clinton library recently. i mean, a couple years ago. and you walk in, and you basically see what happened in the 1990's. a number of people who own cell phones in 1992. number of people who own cell phones in 2000. and so it goes. and silhouetted against this is a ridiculously large picture of bill clinton beaming as if to say, "look what i did." so these presidential libraries are to some degree's propaganda machines for their guy. you go through them and think, wow, this guy must have been great because they tend to sanitize the stuff that made the guy look bad. this is why i love the reagan ranch because the reagan ranch is actually a genuine, unadulterated window into reagan's life and soul. i mean, it literally almost brought my wife debbie to tears because when you see these of the city and utility of reagan

-- i love picking up his books and going through them. you see his handwriting marks in the margin. as far as i know, he didn't. , went to the jackson plantation, came out and said andrew jackson was a great guy. andrew jackson was a patriot. i would not say everything is bad about andrew jackson, but andrew jackson was also as he kicked american indians off his land was buying the land and his friends were putting up money, and he was pocketing money on the sides. there is a whole dark side of andrew jackson, which is all laid out in a book on jackson that spells this out in gruesome detail. so he is a very mixed figure to say the least. notice even democrats are embarrassed by him. that is why they pretend like thomas jefferson started the democratic party, the democratic republican party. >> thank you. >> good morning. my name is ryan, and i am from

the united kingdom. earlier this week, tommy robinson was released from prison. i am wondering if you see any parallel between? [applause] >> i was just wondering if you see any parallel between his case and yours? dinesh: i think so. without knowing that case very well, it does seem that here is a guy locked up essentially for free speech, for having views that they consider to be unpopular. the way that the left has now started locking up its opponents i think is very frightening. not just from the united kingdom, but here. let's look at manafort. i realized the case is complex, and i do not know if he did what they are accusing him of doing or not, but before manafort is tried, the judge approved in order that puts this guy in solitary confinement. you only have to step outside our comfortable world and imagine yourself in a very small fiddly ventilated cell -- thinly

ventilated cell with no select coming in what you are allowed for one hour a day. you are deprived of normal human materials that keep you sane. i think an intelligent normal person can quite easily go insane in that environment. yet the left was ok with it. they defended it. they want it. they would probably be happy if they could put me in solitary confinement. so what i say is when you're dealing with these kinds of people, this is not a time to say, ok, it is really good. we cannot be like them. we got to really try to meet them halfway. we have to try to have a very civil -- no.when you start locking your opponents up , that is the time for some trumpian resistance. that is the time to up the ante. [applause] dinesh: quite honestly, if the university of california at

berkeley's blocking speakers on campus, it is time for trump to send in the national guard. why? because our fundamental free-speech right is paramount. [applause] : i have totally had it with these sort of invertebrate republicans who run for the exits. and i am going to be controversial and name condoleezza rice, whom i respect. but when condoleezza rice was kicked off campus, think of it. if you can kick condoleezza rice off the campus, you can kick every republican, every conservative off-campus. -- i don't want us to give it a really want me. don't you realize that by taking that currently position, you are actually crossing the chances of every other conservative in the future taking on that campus? you are allowing these gangster tactics to work. when they do that to you, you have to show up and speak. i don't care if the university provides an auditorium. speak on the green if you have to. why?

because if you do not fight back against the tyranny of the left, that to many of the left will consume you. that is the dark lesson of the 20th century, that the people who stood by the wayside and tried to be gentlemen and accommodate journey, in the end, they became its encompasses. >> thank you. [applause] morning. >> good 'srlier you claimed that nixon line order campaign was not racially motivated. if that is true, how do you explain his domestic policy, the famous quote, we knew we could not make it legal to be against the war or blacks, but by getting the hippies to associate with -- and increment eyes and both heavily, we can disrupt their communities and vilify night after night. did we know we were lying about the drugs? of course we did. dinesh: that is not richard nixon. what is the source of that quote? >> cnn.

about thisave read and never seen the quote. i want to point out something. after watergate, some of the people around nixon, people like haldeman, cox, hr these are people who worked for nixon, the once they knew that down,xon ship was going they realized their future was with the left so they fled to become media heroes, and he became media heroes by slandering nixon. so you got to be a little careful when you look at the testimony of people who actually turned on nixon and became professional nixon haters. subsequent career is on the authority testifying against nixon. these people were willing to say anything to promote their careers. the architect of the southern strategy was kevin phillips. and his book, the emerging republican majority, is widely credited with being the bible of nixon's southern strategy gridlock of leftist scholars say

phyllis orchestrated the southern strategy. for the thread away in his book -- phillips right away in his book goes, that is don't. he goes, my book was an attempt to interpret what nixon did. i was not actually driving it. it is amazing how much shoddiness there is, even an intellectual present. nixon's strategy was to go after the nonracist southerners of the peripheral or upper south. and that is who nixon won. the proof is in the pudding. nixon lost the deep south. he won the outer or peripheral south. it is a complicated story. goldwater features it. there is nuanced to it. -- nuance to it. i don't mean to jump over the nuance. i have been to the nixon library and listened to the watergate tapes.

n private, nixon kind of hated everybody. he does not like the irish, italians, the ancient greeks. he calls the ancient greeks "fags." i mean, socrates. nixon had a lot of private resentment, but was a very machiavellian figure. that is really why the left has not been able to find any -- none of these private prejudices put themselves in the public so you have to wait for the secret watergate tapes later to find out that privately nixon had harbored all this stuff so it is complicated. bottom-line is i have never heard that quote. i will check it out. >> benedict would care to make a comment on arthur jones running as a republican, who is previously an american not see

-- nazi party and has been condemned. 20,000 people actually did vote for him. dinesh: or her. -- davidean, this guy duke. you know, when you are thinking about a subject, you cannot guy whoe surreptitious snuck into the room as representative of a movement. in. guy smuggled his way and then they repudiate him. the left loves this stuff. how can you say the kkk did not vote for trump? this is literally trying to establish a generalization with a solitary example, right? because quite frankly if you were to make a list of the 200 liters of the ku klux klan going back to the 1860's all the way to the present, you find about 95% of them were democrats. all the leaders of the clan.

guys like robert byrd. democrats defend them. though clinton was at robert -- funeral.al, he said, do not be hard on him for being in the claim. you have to be to advance in the party. think about that. he was what i'm getting at. yes, we should repudiate these but do notr best, fall or be a sucker to the idea because david duke is trying to be a republican while the party shuns him -- the weight of the evidence is that the vast -- they of the klansmen brought hamburgers to watch as people were hanging from trees. that bad stuff was done with the approval and sometimes with the organization of the party that we know now as the democratic party. >> thank you so much. [applause]

: let me say in closing that it is always an honor to speak to you guys. i speak to a lot of different groups, gop groups, activist groups, corporations, but nothing is more exciting than speaking to young people who when they asked a question really want to hear the answer. this is something from all my career, i am not as young as i used to be, i like to speak on the campus because i think i have a message to young people. and to watch young people in the audience and their jaws drop, and ultimately the beauty of living today is you can check things out. when people say -- when i say virtually no dixiecrats became republicans, and people go, what? our earphones and you can verify what i said in five minutes. the nazi platform. google, boom, there it is.

ask yourself, when you read the platform, does that sound to you right wing or left-wing? that is ultimately the issue. the big lies i have been talking about today long predate trump. they go back in some cases to world war ii. here is what happened. the progressives who came to power in the 1940's and 1950's, they knew about the deep shameful association between fascism on that side of the atlantic and the progressive democrats on the side. i mean, fdr's phrasing was illini. mussolini phrasing -- phrasing fdr. he things it is more progressive than the new deal he wants to bring some of it here. progressives praise hitler. praising the new deal. "we feel only the possibility that it might fail." nazitly from the official newspaper about the fdr new

deal. they knew this, the progressive if we let this stuff out, put it in the textbooks, tell future generations about this, the progressives and democrats are finished. so they realize even before you might say the dust on the liberation of the concentration camps have settled, they settle on a big lie. let's muddy the definition of fascism so intelligent people can utterly what it is. let's try to move fascism from the left-wing column, where it has always been, into the right-wing column so we can now blame it on our political opponents. this kind of nonsense has been going on for 75 years. but it is atrump, necessary intellectual foundation for trump. all of these dummies on cnn would not be able say what the say without the underlying

narrative.that narrative is what is holding them up to it is the race card and fascism card. and it is the focus of my career to crush both because i think if we take away the left's race card and fascism card, those miserable characters have no other cards left. that is it. they are finished. and then they have to debate every issue on their merits, and that is when conservatism comes into its statesmanlike glory because we are defending what has made america what it is. ladders of opportunity instead of robes of dependency. side.at on our the in of the day, they can call themselves progressives all they want. history is on our side. but it is full of confidence, and may the force be with us. thank you very much. [applause] >> coming up live in about 15

minutes, a discussion about the role of civil society in u.s. foreign-policy hosted by the open society foundation. that starts at 4:00 p.m. eastern. until then, we will take a look at some of today's "washington journal" and the future of the democratic party. host: veteran democratic consultant mike lux on his book, "how to democrat in the age of trump." but before we talk about the present and future i want to , talk about how democrats got here. you point out in your book this statistic. in the decade since 2008 peak when the future looks promising, we have lost senate seats, 63 , 903s. house seats legislative seats. we also lost the presidency in 2016 to the least prepared and most polarizing demagogue perhaps ever. what were democrats doing wrong in that decade between 2008 and today?

guest: