tv Capital News Today CSPAN August 3, 2012 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
>> i am writing one from london. mitt romney is to take a hard line on china. he has even labeled china as a currency manipulator. so those of us are free traders in europe, whether it is true or not, it is suggested that there might be implications in terms of overt protectionism or trade wars between countries. are we right to be worried about that? >> yes and no. i do wonder whether governor mitt romney would declare china a manipulator as soon as he gets into office. after all, he is supposed to overkill obamacare the first few days in office. [laughter] again, i certainly hope he gets to that first. on the trade issue and the currency issue, he certainly talks and lots of other
the chinese currency has actually appreciated over 30%. that is not exactly a small number. so progress we on trent certainly has been made on one front in 2007 or so, china's current surplus with a huge part of its gdp and a lot of people use that to argue the case was undervalued. today, it is actually a much smaller part of the gdp. so the move meant other currency has actually reached an equilibrium. certainly a lecture -- elected officials in congress. in 05 or six for instance or a seven. but i certainly am inclined to
believe that romney having been such a successful businessman would stand on the side of free trade when he is elected to office. yes. >> tyler warman, he'll sell college. what will be taken if china invades taiwan? >> our official policy is something called strategic ambiguity. [laughter] according to the u.s. government, we doubt -- you know, we're not going to tell you. i don't represent the u.s. government. what the u.s. government has said ever since 1979 or so is that were going to lead it strategically ambiguous because it's part of how -- you know, it's part of the decisions in capitalist that were going to try to deter an attack on taiwan. certainly i think it depends in part on how the attack will
occur, but it's very hard to imagine that if china and fact-based taiwan that the u.s. would just stand idly by. >> hi, my name is not good of california go to california state university monterey bay. as you know we pass the legislation for high-speed rail through california from san francisco to los angeles. all the while state tuition has increased $200 every semester for a while now. how quickly is this going to bankrupt our state even further? what you may do to get in their way of keeping -- of continuing the legislation? >> is kind of funny, but it's not. you know, because hayseed brail going from nowhere to nowhere really. if i remember correctly is from bakersfield to fresno, right?
the first leg of a compass i hope there's no one you from bakersfield or fresno. with all due respect to sort of a leg that's going from nowhere to nowhere and it's going to be extremely expensive. unfortunately california is full of people who love these kinds of projects and governor jerry brown has been talking about high-speed rail for a little on trent really long time, longer than president obama has. in terms of how you can stop it, i think the key of citizens will have to -- we'll really have to raise their voices. i don't think it's necessarily democrat or republican issue. it's just an issue of our state not having that kind of money. we can't possibly go on spending money we don't have in this harkens back to the governor scott walker said earlier. i think whatever the party affiliation of people in california, whatever their party
affiliations are common people understand we have a huge budget crisis. that californians have always -- i'm from california and californians love these projects and spend a lot of money. but the lack of regulations come extremely high income taxes. we don't seem to understand those things actually cost our economy, our state economy quite a bit. so i guess the only thing we can do is keep plugging away, keep showing the evidence that these things don't work and i guess these things have to come from the people and the people will have to get involved and do their best to deter any more idiotic actions from the state. >> my name is matthew taylor and i graduated from hillsdale college three years ago. i wanted to ask you a few comments on the following argument. i apologize if i don't have the name on the argument. but it's a question about the
source of the chinese government swells. you know, they're buying u.s. bonds, investing in corrupt state businesses. they're investing in foreign nations as well. and the argument is that money is coming from central banks, which are themselves getting money by essentially cheating the peasantry and the growing middle class who have very few avenues for investment. there are families which have had only one child and second generations have only one child. you've got one child supporting for grandparents. grandparents can no longer sit port country depend on children, so they have to invest in the investments are very limited. essentially you got property, life insurance policies and
simple savings accounts. because of the monopoly of the banks, you have -- is common for banks to return negative interest rates to their savings accounts. >> real interest rates. >> is coming to their savings accounts. >> so essentially the chinese people are getting screwed. >> but there's no other way to say that's the best they can do. they are essentially being cheated. people are being cheated out of funding this day. how accurate is the testament and how stable is that situation? >> well, what you're describing is something called financial repression and it's something that the government actively does. i mean, essentially the government, because much of the banking sector is dominated by
state banks and state banks at the interest rates for deposits. so you go to bank here and get a cd, so the deposit said china is extremely well and often times longer than the rate of inflation. if you put your money in the bank and you oftentimes end up getting negative -- and negative interest rate act. and you now, what happens is that the chinese people get a ride deal out of this. meanwhile, chinese citizens tend to save a lot more than american citizens. we consume way more than we ought to. and they actually save a lot. when the financial repression in was put into place, people ended up saving even more because they knew, my goodness, because the real interest rate is actually negative, so as a result they
wanted to put away even more money. i think as a result there has been our first by people to find other vehicles to invest their money. property is one of those avenues and that's one reason why the property market in china has sort of become this huge bubble. you know, but the massive savings that the chinese citizens put into the state banks and of funding state initiatives. and because the state banks want to run state enterprises a lot, often times they went to state-owned enterprises at the direction of the government for big projects that the government deems important. so it is really the blood, sweat and tears of the chinese people who go into funding megaprojects at the chinese government cares about. i wouldn't say that's the case all across the board because even enterprises care about making these money. they have to come much more
corporate ties than they were for instance during the nine years. they are structured very differently. they take orders to the state demanding top officials are high levels of communist numbers and oftentimes you can have the communist government order one guy from one giant state owned enterprise to go and become the ceo of a competing state owned enterprise. and so, it would be a bit like one day the government ordered the ceo of jpmorgan to go and become the ceo of goldman sachs. and these things have happened in the chinese economy because of the very intimately between the state and private sector. this is what happens. and you know, this is how a lot of, you know, this is how many of china's foreign investments are fun to, how they are currently serves gesso beefed
up. i think they recognize the problem. the economy is also going -- the consensus is that the economy will slow. some people think it will slow much more rapidly than others are regardless when the economy stops growing so quickly, i think, you know, what the government does want to do is encourage chinese citizens to spend more. you know, there's a question of how successful they can be with that initiative, but if in fact they can encourage chinese citizens to spend more, than less of the money will go into the state banks. >> hi, brandon nash and from chinese college. i was just wondering, how much of a factor against china on any u.s. attack on a significant portion of it handcuffed the u.s. government for being more aggressive in their foreign policy towards china?
>> welcome at the moment the chinese don't have anywhere else to put it. they don't like the idea that they've got so much debt sitting in u.s. -- that they've got so much money sitting in u.s. treasury and they certainly don't like the fact that we are printing paper money left and right in the value of their investment. so it's one reason why they've been very eager to find other investment opportunities against this operant wealth fund is investing in buying companies are investing other things, not just u.s. treasury's. they are -- you know, so what they would like to do is invest less of their foreign currency in the u.s. i think it's certainly a fact here. i think in the immediate future
we know that the chinese don't really have anywhere else to put it -- put their money, but i think what we ought to think about more if it's not good for us to keep borrowing because it's not bad for china, but it's bad for us because we can't go on spending all this money that we don't have. and you know, at a certain point -- so for instance, you know, there is a question earlier about the currency rate. if in fact china's currency does appreciate a lot more, i mean, there is a chance that then pulling back, you know, from the market might actually affect our credit market because right now to get a lot of cheap credit as a result of the financial relationship that we have with china. and you know, at some point we're going to have to be very careful what we wish for
because, you know, we've been so happy with low interest rates. so i think on this question, it is more important for us to figure out ways to just stop printing of this paper money and find a way to get around economic house in order. >> i am an intern at the policy institute and fellow corn alien. i have read your book, 79 and i found it to be very eye-opening. i was wondering if you tell us about china and what inspires you to become active on campus and at the cornell review. >> thank you. it's always great to see another corn alien. i'm a huge fan of cornell. i got involved with the cornell review because i think on what is my first days on canopy as they went to a student activities fair and picked up an issue and read a number of the articles and i just thought they
were excellent. we had some -- during their freshman years we had the car now conservative publication. we had such incredible writers. at the time, i didn't necessarily identify myself as a conservative. i certainly wasn't registered as a republican, but i was very inspired but i got involved and there is a small group of people to conservatives ideas on the cornell campus. i quickly ended up with more and more responsibilities. so i think during my second week on the paper i became the vice president. and so is very flattering, but it was all so i think a very --
it was a very clever way of recruiting people. each of them fancy titles and lots of things to do. so during my four years at cornell, i was involved with the paper. i very much enjoyed it. i thought that debating conservative ideas was, you know, crucial to, you know, to my college learning experience. as i said at the beginning of my talk i enjoyed working with the young america's foundation. i think that ultimately i became more and more lofty because the ideas were more compelling. i think that if we let the ideas and facts speak for themselves, and then, you know, the ideas and facts make a very convincing case and i think truth is on our
side. so i've continued to sort of be involved in one way or another over the years. but cornell is really where it all got started. [inaudible] >> was in a stratospheric level investment in the african economy from china and some elements of the media are primary liberals have portrayed it as some virtuous beneficial investment or more is that the existing as a neocolonial use of accra,, where they will take the resources in the future. what do you think china's intentions really are for africa? >> i think they just want to make some money. [laughter] you know, they need the resources. visiting at the resources that they are going all the world for resources, not just in africa, but also in southeast asia as well as latin america. i think when the chinese companies, especially big oil companies go overseas, i don't think they are doing it for
altruism. there is definitely a strategic component to it because the country needs the resources for his economic development, but i also don't think these oil companies are going overseas with the intention of losing money. their incentives, their economic incentives are more distorted compared to her companies from elsewhere because these chinese oil companies are other big companies that deal in commodities, for instance, a company that deals with the lemon and, they just get so much more funding from the day, billions of dollars that often time their bibles from other countries don't necessarily get. so i think it is certainly true that these chinese companies oftentimes don't have the kind of corporate social responsibility guidelines that
american companies are european companies follow. the chinese government are oftentimes underrated trends with what we here in the u.s. would consider to be rogue regimes, you know, because the chinese government is much less picky about who it becomes friends with. we oftentimes insist that our friends abide by a certain set of human rights values. the chinese government is a lot less picky about that. but ultimately, the third of the effort to go out and find resources is true then in part by the need for those resources and part by their interest, you know, to make some money. >> bremen from you see santa barbara and usc law. i read an article from "the wall street journal" he couple months ago that said the education system in china is sort of a
double-edged sword, the fact there are so many educated chinese young adults. get the number of positions in the communist party is the next number and the number of educated has outpaced the number of members they can obtain. how do you think is increasing rise in educated class in china will affect the future of the communist party there? >> well, certainly more education is always better than less education in terms of how it affects the communist party. i think the party itself has aggressively tried to recruit more people who are more skilled. like i said earlier in the past three decades or so it's actively tried to recruit and bring in people who are better educated people who have real skills in managing certain aspects of the economy or other
things. i think you're asking if there's so many people to become well-educated, butter and nut jobs -- they don't have to look -- and mean, the positions are necessarily in the party. i think the most sought after positions in china are probably positions at microsoft or apple or in fact these days, there are actually positions of state owned enterprises, particularly those that have a huge amount of money and are listed, either domestically or foreign stock exchanges. i think some of them well-funded enterprises develop excellent benefits and some of them in fact are extremely competitive compensation packages. i mean, lots of people who are well educated don't necessarily think, you know, going into the
communist party is their path to success. i think the communist party is very morally bankrupt at this point. and also, the government has made it very clear they would provide space for citizens to do things that are economic and financial and perhaps social, but would not provide what is political, but a lot of people's political ambitions has been curtailed accordingly as a result of this bargain. i think the better question is in the long run once people become more well-educated and people become better off, are they going to continue to put up with the kind of political repercussions that the state institutes? is a difficult question to answer, simply because the state isn't just couldn't sit there and take it. it's going to do all kinds of things to bolster and strengthen its rule. it will reform internally. it will also surprise where
necessary. i think it's going to deploy a combination of tactics and strategies. it's not going to be so clear-cut was going to happen, but i think as a society becomes wealthier and as people become more well-educated and become better informed, the pressures for reform definitely will increase. in the beginning, they may not necessarily be immediate calls for elections or any fundamental political reforms. people may just be calling for transparency and accountability. so i refer to earlier in my room are, you know, when you watch that movie about them, he doesn't really talk about, you know, we want the right to vote or anything like that. i mean, a lot of times in the actions he takes and other
people take, they just want more transparency, more accountability and they want a government that's less corrupt. i think over time those kinds of pressures will build were certainly build a. thank you. [applause] >> next, washington state republican party chairman kirby wilbur talks kirby wilbur tax-deductible religion and faith played in the foundation of the united states and influence in modern politics. this is just over an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> young america foundation is committed to educating young people on the values of individual freedom, free enterprise, strong national defense and free values.
the average organization is the conservative movement, foundation by providing essential conferences, seminars, internship and the opportunity to bring a conservative superstar to speak at your campus. to learn more about the foundation, please visit us online at www.yaf.com. our next speaker, kirby wilbur is currently the chairman of the washington state gop. although born in washington d.c., kirby mercia seattle at the age of eight and i spent the majority of his life living in the evergreen state. for 16 years, kirby hosted the popular morning drive broadcast in seattle. for the last 12 years, he's taught american and world history and american government and economics to have schoolers in several homeschool co-ops. he's a member of the board of directors for young america foundation, the second amendment foundation, american conservative union and citizens
united. he's also an associate of hillsdale college and serves on the civil service commission at his home town of devolve. he's been involved in conservative politics for over 35 years and has served in numerous volunteer leadership positions. he appeared on fox news, c-span, fox business channel and many other network news stations. he has received numerous awards from family and law enforcement, charitable and political organizations. kirby has what speaks for itself. he is a speaker that introduced me to this conservative movement. he's been an inspiration for me to become an activist to get involved in a campus. i admire him greatly and i think him in the foundation for truly changing my life. please join me in welcoming, kirby wilbur. [applause]
>> kaman come you guys. you're standing that because late and you're tired. i understand. when i talked to katie about coming here, she didn't tell me be the last speaker. between ying ma and dr. george come events and great speakers. have you had a good time at this conference? have you learned anything quite i want to talk a bit about the history of our country in the midst of the separation of church and state, but it's late and i just have to tell you quick joke to make sure your old life. i live in the northwest. truly liberal a tear. anyway, this young hippy atheist environmental wind taking one day produce market and the width of the birds are singing, sky is blue, wind is blowing. he runs a curb on the trail and finds the bear and the bear sees lunch and so the hippy atheist
environmentalists is running any trips on something on the himelfarb in the bear's about to him. he goes my god. and all of a sudden everything stops. the wind stops blowing, creek stops flowing. the birds start singing and a voice from above comes yes, my son? any size, who are you? my god, you called on me. what do you want? i'm busy. i don't even believe you exist. well, kaman. would he want? well, i don't want to get eaten. so he says what he wanted to do do about it? well, something. your guy. okay, what you like to become a christian? the guy says i can't do that because i went to college and they told me i was atheist. i don't even believe you exist. how about if you make the very christian?
god finally says, as you wish. the birds start singing, the wind is going in the bear says dear god, please bless us millen about to receive. [cheers and applause] beware of what you ask for. can we have a hand for the staff? haven't they done a great job? [applause] let's talk about the wall of separation between church and state and one of the greatest myths in american history. i do stretch into some of the things ying ma talked about and dr. george. i'm kind of glad and let me tie this into american exceptionalism and what makes this such a great country. you know, the establishment of a church in the 18th century that specifically a particular denomination received taxpayer status and support from the state government, which means
that this was a colony of kirby and the 13th and 18th century, we succeeded from virginia with the calling of kirby in the catholic spirit anglicans there, episcopalians, abs and are down here. you're afraid to go whatever house of worship you want to, but you will pay the tax to support the church of kirby, whatever establishment that was. commingling of the church of england were british friends. in france you have the revolution, catholic church. virginia was the anglican church in northern provinces. the congregationalist churches. at the time of our declaration of independence from another country, there were nine colleges that established churches. patches that you paid a tax to support that particular denomination, which they used to pay the clergy and violin. you're free to go whatever church he wanted to. what the founders are talking about in the first amendment and
what is not understood about the wall of separation is that the founders did not want to church of america in the same way that was the church of england. they really didn't care the state established churches. in fact, madison's first draft of the first amendment says simply no national religion shall be established which meant there would be no anglican church or presbyterian church or congregational church getting federal money. now come is in committees and their breeze, congress shall pass no law establishing religion or for the exercise thereof. she said congress will not support a national church. it does not say there's no room for god in the public square. it does not say christians can't be involved in politics. it does not aim. you can say prayer before football game. it simply says there will be no national church.
jefferson's letter has been really misinterpreted. if you read the letter -- i urge you to read the letter because jefferson when he was elected in 1800 was thought to be a friend of religious disestablishment tearing his son. you've heard the word is establishmentarian sm. it comes from the time in history, where it was moved to disestablish the churches and allowed no state money. it was not anti-christian, anti-faith. it was antigovernment. no need for the government to favor churches. when he got a letter from a group of baptists in danbury, connecticut that said that the word he got elected. now we do not pay taxes to the dark operationalize. we don't like paying taxes. can you help us? to emphasize the point they delivered a four to half a wheel of cheese to the white house from which they assured mr. jefferson was made only with milk from republican cows
because jefferson was a republican, by the way in the congregationalist or federalists and the were so there is politics involved in this as well. the foreign half will achieve which had been moving for three months camassia can imagine what it smells like was delivered to the white house. jefferson says an going to write a letter to respond to this. jefferson's letter simply said, our congress, our national legislature was very wise in establishing a wall of separation between church and state. is that our national legislature commanding in the national legislature goes on to say i can't do anything about what states do because they believe in the 10th amendment and the 10th amendment doesn't give me this power. so you're kind of stuck. having to pay taxes for congregationalist or about this. just a rebuttal letter. the people of the faith for a support.
the courts are taking it that way. you just have to read the letter. we asked 100 people bowl of separation between church and state. the constitution was say yes. they weren't to baptists in connecticut. i think it's important to understand that our founders were men with a few women. they do you see were quite voting that, but they were women involved in this movement. we declared independence. we just thought you guys are prepping us and we can debate that later, but we declared our independence. these men and women were overwhelmingly people of faith. people of the christian faith. and you can go to direct sources of famous historians.
tina boorstin, a former labor and of commerce and of famous american historians of this about the colony of virginia. now, the colony of virginia, my home state that i was born here at george washington university that i still consider myself a virginian, not a wash to me and. they declared independence two months before america did on may 15, 1776. they declared their independence there were 100 delegates at the convention. 97 were altars in their church. 97 were altars in their church out of 100. burstyn grows. it was a leader of the revolution of the anglican church. in virginia, quite a devotion to the english church bearish the reverence for the english constitution and the traditional rights of englishmen can which
inspired revolution. there is no paradox that leaders of virginia were to amend the anglican of the revolution. you see the same thing in new england and massachusetts, where the clergy every sunday in the 1760s the church about tierney to revile them your way to replace feature radical government with a new government in fact come in 1774, governor hutchison wrote authorities in london, quote, sedition flows copious and from the pulpit. sedition flows copious and from the pulpit because the people in massachusetts and connecticut and elsewhere heard every sunday about the need to change in the cause of independence. david hackett fischer, another poster prize-winning historian and american author wrote to the contemporary saying they consider themselves, quote, the new. 10, unquote. they also believe they were
doing gods work in the world and no earthly force could overcome them. these were men of faith. the rules of war. june 30, 1775. calls to the provision of chaplains to the army. the pain of them and recommended the services twice a day. it is not services to gaia, not services to send indian or asian or african god. these are divine services centered around jesus christ. punishment is provided for those who behaved indecently or reverently during divine service. that may be adopted the rules were n-novembera, 1775. these rules of war which will define services twice a day and specifically the same sermon on sundays for those who swore blessings on the ship.
now i just point this out to suggest that these people's faith was so much for the daily life that they ride into the rules of war. there is this divine providence over them. i'll give this more in a mall that there's three specific areas we can look at. first is the view of our founders of america as the new israel. secondly, i think we need to look at the wording of the declaration of independence and see what kind of guy they envisioned and then they can just read the gentleman shared over here at the declaration on the shirt that's right they are. you can read it. i had the same charade there. i would every fourth of july when we set up fireworks. and the third thing -- you guys could have come up as. the third thing as i think when you look at the roles of virtue, as much as we talk about liberty and freedom, our founders talk a lot about virtue and they need
to enroll in virtue of self-government. no were summoned to the puritan leader on the hill israelis 30 in his sermon coming over to boston. you're the great awakening in the 1730s and 1740s. you look at that and see the notion was reinforced in america was a special nation to check out for some divine region. jefferson -- thomas jefferson in 1776 is also operating the declaration. some idea for the national seal. his idea was moses leading the people of israel to the promised land. walter mcdougall, another pulitzer prize-winning historian has written in his book, the evidence the colonists believed america was the holy land that is set apart to be trite. all founders believe in american exceptionalism as early as the
1730s. an earlier 1630s, the holy land and new israel. when you look at the declaration of independence, god is mentioned at least four times of the declaration. how is god mentioned? at first he was mentioned as the nature's god. unmake slot. he is the creator. all men are created equal, so he creates and provides less. he's the supreme judge of the world. the supreme judge of the world. a god that he says judgment on the world, also a protector because at the end they ask for the reliant on the protection of divine providence. the goddess protect dear. god is creator. god is judge in god is giver.
now, if these men were tedious, this definition of god and the founding document does not save. it does not fit the idea of the watchmaker god who winds up in the months ago if you watch the baby do something else. this is a god that intervenes in the world. this is a god who answers prayer. this is a god who created you. this is a god who gave you your right. this is a god who's going to judge the world one day. this is a god who gave us our laws and this is the god who protects us. so this is not what many cyclery suggest were shut. that is not to say founders are orthodox christians. i don't jefferson was an orthodox christian. many of the founders disregarded things like marigolds of the trinity. they rejected a lot of christianity. i suspect sounded not as much as
we think that we always focus on people like thomas paine, ben franklin when maybe we should focus more than 97 and out of 100 men in williamsburg who were altars in their church. they probably have more in fact ultimately than people like jefferson and frank lane. bush's look at the top billiards. jefferson is the one that was about the creator and protect her and the judge. that is his language. he may not be a christian, but he certainly adopted the judeo-christian view. he adopted the view of god the and christians have. judge, protect her, give her a creator. i think there is a view they are, it could clue for god. it may not be the christian god, but it's a god in light of the christian worldview and that is the god they played in all
important role in the creation of this country. john page, virginia state senator classic jefferson wrote to jefferson two weeks after the declaration. he wrote this, because he received a declaration that a lot of americans were excited to a lot convince they were squashed us and we're a reason excited about the declaration. john wrote this. we know the rates are not swift, nor the battles of the strong. do you not need financial race in the whirlwind interact with storm? in other words, do not believe we have to play and and providence helping us in this? the race is not always go to the swift or the strong. do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm? i want to talk about the rule of virtue and self-government and it's an important side of the coin. we always talk about liberty and freedom. small government, don't tell me what to do. some people have taken an
extreme, legalize everything, don't tell me what to do. but there's another side to self-government good and that is the idea of virtue, good behavior. how do you behave in a free society? the founders were worried about this. they were smart man come historians. they look at the 5000 years of recorded history that we have a nice holiday with this declaration, there is no self-governing republic society that lasted for a decent period of time. they all fell. they all fell to corruption. they also to external invasion. they also to internal conflict. why is the self-government hasn't caught fire yet? what is unique about america? why should we then try this? remember if he you read them you know they talk about an experiment. franklin reportedly set to run an outside independent poll,
what is he given us? he reportedly stated to the republic, if you can keep it. the founders had to. but if you read their writing, you will see they talk about virtue as much as they do liberty because good behavior is dependent. self-government is to cut under behavior. how we govern yourself? they understood the people wanted order as well as liberty. but if we live in a society where people think freedom means pillage, stealing, taking the people and government will be big of a precedent taranto: use your freedom. they understood that. if you look a the 5000 years of recorded history as a ruler, think of it as a 12-inch ruler. it is only the last less than half-inch of the 5000 years that we've had successful
self-government. the first 11 and a half inches, by this pretty much the same for all of you. most of you be farmers. most of you would live and die in the village, your parents land or the later parents had told for the landlord. your wife came to the village. your kids stay in the village. your chances of moving up or now. you have the rich and the nobles. you have everyone else. you might be a blacksmith. you might win a little money sent, your chances of moving up and put hot assisting were pretty low remember. that was true from ancient rome, ancient greece, on the way to europe. for what happened 1776, showing the self-government was possible and what we've done since prosperity in terms of unoffending everyone and the wealth of nations, britain and america and let the world into capital is some unqualified and
prosperity. the founders say you can't do that without virtue. you must behave yourselves. you must regulate their own behavior. edmund burke said, rightly so, the more change you have on the inside, but let's change a lead on the outside. and so the founders with this issue of how to regulate ourselves quite hard with regulator behavior? do we have a vote? everyone thinks we should cheat our business partners say i? that's not how you establish a moral code. is your faith is your moral code. the founders understood that christianity was a good factor, had a positive impact on virtue. john adams -- just think of what they're saying. jonathan stroke where no government armed with power of
contending with human passions unbridled by morality of religion. our constitution is made for all the moral and religious people. contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. orality and religion are the bread of that help you maintain your passions so you can live with your neighbor and we can live in freedom and liberty. jefferson can the liberties of the nation be secured that we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of god. if you think the state give you your freedom, if you think they give your freedom, they can be done tomorrow. the producer a gift from god. it is from god we give this gift of the rules how to use it. adams again come to season can speculate for liberty, or religion and morality alone can establish the principles upon
which freedom can securely stand. there has to be religious and moral basis to society for self-government to work. benjamin rush, the only foundation for useful education and republic is to be laid in religion. without this or be no virtue in without virtue, no liberty. liberty and virtue are sides of the same coin. if you can't regulate our behavior come and stay well and liberty will die. hamilton, the politician knows that morality overthrown and morality must follow without relation, the tears that despotism cannot own curb tempestuous passions of man and confined within the bonds of social duty. so we don't have religion. you have tyranny. same alternative to force you to behave. the founders understood without doubt and without anyone else
contesting that we are falling. we are sent whole. her imperfect. and this is the key difference between a revolution, which wasn't a revolution. was it worth independent of the french revolution, a godless by men who do not understand to provide a perfect society couple of hundred thousand dead in napoleon they have to live in france. we got 250 years for self-government. all of their revolutions, russian revolution, cheney started out to remake man a ball sailed about about worse results. hamilton here says the politician knows with no morality, only despotism can curb you and make you behave. same thing with benjamin reschke. john dickinson. kings or parliaments could not get the right to happiness. we claim from a higher source, from the king of kings and lord
of all the earth. again, worker rights? they come from god. john adams again. the bible contains the most profound philosophy, most perfect morality and refined policy ever conceived on earth. it is the most republican book in the world. republican small are by the way. the most repelling the republic self-government. if you want a code to live by to bring about self-government, it's in the bible. u.s. to others as others do unto you. if you charity, treat each other with respect. if you want self-government, you have to live this way because without it, tyranny and despotism will show you how to live. washington of course about the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. it supports.
of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and prosperity are sports. the religious code, moral code for people to be self-governing. and we see it in our own country, do we not? as things fall apart, as things don't go like they should, people violate our moral code, the state was empowered. we don't take care of one another. let's have a welfare state. remember the good samaritan? the good samaritan comes along the road and blinds the man who is not. a good samaritan takes into town and says here is my money. take care of him and if it's not enough, i will pay you back when i am through town next. he didn't say drop him off at the welfare office. he lobbied the roman senate from a welfare. he accepted the responsibility to care for another man in need.
and i think you find it should look at the progressive era come the turn to the 19th and 20th centuries still see as you let during that time of the early 1900s in the church move to other things, the state started to grow because the church neglected its responsibility to take care of people. the sonics pushed on the welfare state. does anyone but the government can really dispense charity better than a state -- i mean come the church or private organization? have you ever looked at what% of the summaries are in the state run programs in prisons and fellowship? the state can't preach morality. it shouldn't preach morality. the state can't look at them in and say you did wrong because you made the wrong choice and if you don't change your heart to be another criminal when they keep coming back. you look at the recidivism rates in the people go to the programs of people change their heart. people find religion and change their ways to go back to
committing crimes. people that climb the analyst or get them out of jail, back. one last thing on this and that all close and take your questions. the sweet land of liberty down to the music from the famous and bush saw in 1832, have you ever heard the fourth stanza aquatics our father's guide to the author of liberty, to the receiving. long may hardly be bright come with freedom's holy light. protect us by they might, great god arcane. you cannot escape that colonial american is our founding was infused at every level with essentially partisan christianity. this is what motivated people. they realize we have to live this way if we wanted to be free, that we had to have a
moral code of this is what it was. it wasn't a matter for us to never want to thing you have to be a good christian to be a better american. it was an establishing church because they did not want to establish a national church. they want citizens to understand we have to regulate internal behavior. how do we do that? they found the best way to do that with the bible. we are a free society. we can change that anytime. let's have a vote. there's other ways we can change it. mine is suggesting your history teachers in the books you read in college about separation of church and state are lying to you or ignorant to take their pick. i don't mind if we change. that's up to us as a free people. we should at least change knowing what the truth was in the beginning, understanding motivation of founding fathers in connection they saw between virtue and liberty and understand.
we don't need it. or before we buy about it, it was never really there. yes, it was. our fathers got to be written in 183256 years ago. our founding fathers believed this. america's a very exceptional country, exceptional for a lot of reasons you for this week. exceptional because we represent what i think washington called the sacred fire of liberty. i think that every time we see the torch. i was remember before and if you were born. remember that torch and it struck me. remember the phrase by washington, the sacred fire of liberty, a gift from god that we in america were fortunate enough to fight the war and start that flame and have a grown contagion around the world to be the example for people can do in
terms of productivity and prosperity, in terms of charity come in terms of benefiting everyone. there is no lower class and middle-class that benefits in any other society like they do in a free-market society. there is nowhere where wealth is created to benefit everywhere everyone like it isn't a free-market society. in 1776 where the declaration of independence, political liberty and the wealth of nations. i don't and it's an accident that those two great documents were written in the same year. it was realizing that we need for self-government that we saw here. as ying ma mentioned anything dr. george mentioned come you don't see people dying to get into other countries. dr. george mentioned on the berlin wall, the traffic was one way. the traffic is still one way. you go down to the border of mexico we can all have different opinions on immigration, but i
spent time in the border and i arrested illegal immigrants. the surrender because if they're not criminals aside from break and the country, do not bank robbers or, and we send them back to mexico, bulges come back the next day. and when we asked them where you're coming? i had a man who tried to con over seven nights in a row. he got caught seven eidson rony kept coming back or so he's in the holding summer about to take it back to tijuana and dump them off. he says what are you doing tomorrow night? is that i'm coming back tomorrow. there is no hope, liberty and my country. in america there is all of that. they're risking their lives for welfare. they simply have no opportunity because mexico is such a screwed up country that is controlled at the top by a very few people.
foundation long after ron and i are having wheelchair races in the nursing home. you're going to be here, teaching the next generation about the ideas of freedom these are eternal ideals. they come from here. and theyome from there. man has a strive and yearning for freedom and liberty when he has a chance for it, he will. it's up to you to keep these ideas alive. you have to give them life. you can't come back here and say, great conference, met some nice people. had a couple parties, saw dc, met scott walker, my hero. we need you to work. we need you to talk to your friends and recruit your family and friends and get in the fight. this is an eternal fight. ronald reagan said free dom is never more than one generation from extinct and that's true
here. i was born in virginia but -- and lincoln in the middle of the summer of 1864 -- the war was going badly. supposed to last three weeks and lasted for years. hundreds of thousands dead. the democrats screaming, the war should be over. the wanted to cut off funding. they were running the peace candidate in the election. the war wasn't worth -- black people weren't worth it, the union, stop the war. they still do those kind of things when it comes to war. but lynnline thought he would lose because there was no end to the war in sight. casualties were high. and he would to relieve his stress and to get some free time, he went to the railroad station in washington and saw the troops coming back from the front. a lot of troops were out for 190 days, 180 days and they would ship through virginia, and then go home through washington so
lincoln went to the train station almost any day and see troops going home or coming. august 28, 1864. he talked to a group of men from ohio. 164th ohio. on their way home. and he said two things to them, very fundamentally true. the first thing he said was, gentlemen, people really don't understand what this war is about. they don't understand what is at stake. what is at stake is whether your children and my children shall enjoy the same privileges and liberties we enjoyed as americans. think about that. isn't that what we're fighting for today? haven't i and ron spent our time fighting to make sure our kids, who are now your age or older, have the same privileges as we have? i had a great life. my mom, from poland, brought her here for a better life. she didn't have a better life than mine but better than a life
in poland. i've got a great life. a great job, run a political party, get to be on the board of this great yours, a great wife, two great kids. i'm living the american dream. the first of my family to go to college. i've lived it. i've lived it. but my concern now is whether you'll live it. whether my 25-year-old and 30-year-old son will live it. are they going to have the same chance i had? the whole american dream is giving the next generation a better life you had, and we're at the point where we may not be able to, and i choose -- i decline as a choice -- when they say america is in decline, decline is a choice and i choose not to decline. i want you to choose not to decline. remember what is at stake here. are you and your kids going to have the same liberties and privileges we have had? as americans? think about that. when you wonder what is
motivating you to go out and -- at 2:00 in the morning and having political lefties calling you names and trying to get -- remember what you're in it for. it's not for glorily, not because you heave nothing else -- because you have nothing else to do. it's for your kids. for your country. it's for that sacred fire of liberty, that lights the world, for the city on the hill. lincoln said this nation is worth fighting for. still is. let's go fight and let's win. thank you very much. [applause]
>> thank you. if there are any questions -- do we have time to take questions? yes, ma'am. >> yes. we talked a little bit -- >> name and college. >> yes. >> sorry. i've done too many of these things. >> i should have the down. i'm gabby snyder from colorado christian university. we talked today about how we cannot have a true democracy that functions and protects the people unless the people are ready for it, both economically and socially. so i'd like to ask you, does this mean like countries like mexico, who have toll totally free and unreined market but yet much poverty and oppression, does that mean they don't need a democracy, they need more government control and does that mean that america should be an isolationist country and not get involved in countries that
aren't ready for democracy? >> i think -- i believe the declaration of independence, all mean are equal. not white men, not american men, not english connellists. all men are created equal. i think it's a gift from god. now we have this recent debate with governor romney in israel talking about culture impact and the palestine is get stressed out. he is right, though. not everyone is necessarily prepared for self-government. you have to have responsible people, you have to have an understanding out of what self-government involves. you have to have some experience. somebody we don't understand, you study our history, the anglican church never sent a bishop to america. so we spent 150 years electing our own preachers and we hat colonial legislators, so we had 150 years of experienced self-governing.
elected our own legislators and church leaders. we were ready for it. not all societies necessarily are but culture is vital. and the palestinian culture that celebrates death and suggests it's a good thing to send your kid tout kill jews and infidels because they good to heaven, they're not ready for economic prosperity but they have to make that decision. we have interests we should protect as a nation. we should be very picky, but we should never hesitate to crush any threat to this country, and crush it quickly, and let people know we will do that, and we need to help other people better than sending money and aid. the best thing we can do is be the example of how self-government works and have a prosperous free society. that's the best thing we can do. >> i'm danny oliver from the national tea party student group. my question -- this related to washington state because i lived there for 20 years. my question is, is your radio
show in the portland area? >> no. it was in seattle. and ended three years ago when management decided they wanted to do something else. the tea party, without the tea party we would be in big trouble because the tea party stood up when the republican party wouldn't, and back in 2009 when all republicans war scared about obama, and, wow do we have to look like home, it was the tea party saw the emperor has know clogs and put the spine in the back of the republican party, so thank you for that. >> i'm from arkansas state university, and thank you for the amazing speech. it was beautiful. i'm catholic and i'm trying to research -- do research on the only catholic signer of the declaration of independence. >> charles carroll. >> i've been told he wrote, of carolton, his home address to prove to the founder he was worthy of their trust and he was going all in and if the british
found the address and hunted him down, he could take it. the second story is he wrote that to distinguish himself from his father. >> i'm not sure. i'm ininclined to believe the second. but there's a really good book put out by isi on charles carroll. i can't remember the exact title of it. but come see me and i'll give you my business card and i'll send you the title and it's a great book, and charles carroll plays a big part in national treasurer, the movie. a very false front because what the movie doesn't understand is charles carroll was the only catholic signer but involved in a masonic movement doesn't add up that the on catholic would be involved in the masons so the movie did a disservice to charles carroll, but come see in the and i'll give you the title. >> i go to ucla. regarding your views on the
states' involvement in religion house do you reconcile that view with the 14th amendment and its vacation and of the bill of rights to the states? >> well, all the states before the 14th amendment all the states disestablished churches. now, i don't think a state should establish a church. was pointing out the historical fact when jefferson wrote this, the states had established churches and jefferson thought they had the right to do that. so jefferson thought the states had the right to establish churches. what's the law of separation nonsense? if you read the letter, he applied it to the national government. he believed under the tenth amendment states could do that but the federal government had no right to interfere in this. 1865. the 14th amendment is 6 a years after that and 30 years after the states were gone. i don't think the states should establish churches. i wanted to point out the historical incoins when you have a note scholar saying, jefferson didn't believe in this. he did. he thought states could do it.
i wouldn't, but jefferson is maybe more conservative than i am. >> josh, how are you doing? >> really good. >> one of my star students in home school. >> thank you. >> you talk about virtue and how when there's a lot of virtue in the society there isn't as much need for government to come in and have regulations and i think we can say with some certainty that in today, america, there isn't as much virtue and so is that the reason that we see government expanding so much? >> i think so. >> so what can we do to bring back about virtuous society and will we get back government -- >> lots of talk. have to practice it. if you think we shouldn't be a welfare state and not help the poor, you have to help the other poor. i you don't think we need to use drones, find better ways to deal with crime. if you don't think the government should have the power it has, find ways to deal with
it on a local level but if we're going to be a virtuous people, we have to practice it by taking care of the neighbors, going to thing my, searching people dinner, taking anymore our hopes, donating more to the church. we don't do it by giving two bucks to the bum on the corner and we daytona do it by letting the state do it. that's just shifts responsibility. there's no virtue in being forced to be virtuous. you understand that. we let the state take our money and we have people say, you know, i already pay any taxes. i don't have to do this. there's no virtue in forcing someone to be virtuous, and trying to remember the name of the gentleman head of aei -- arthur brooks. he used to be a liberal. he wrote a book called "who carolina." he looked at red stated and blue states and was convinced blue states would be the most generous. they're lib rag. and the conservative red states are evil and vicious and don't
care. he found the exact opposite. red states are the most personally generous and liberals don't because they let the state do it. we have to take that back, josh. one person at a time. everyone in this room has to decide huh to help the less fortunate, deal with social issues in my neighborhood? deal with the issue of unwed motherhood, deal with so many kids being born in house without dads. we have to do it the best we can. we can take back, because you helping someone is far better than a bureaucrat. okay? thank you. [applause] >> hello, i'm going to be attending colby college in the fall. and i and i agree with your stance on virtues and it's important and i agree with you on that. but i'm going to speak my mind on this next and disagree with you on the point that church and state should be together. and i have a couple reasons upon
why, and i am going to ask you at the end why you believe so maybe you can maybe sway me. i'm going cite a supreme court case, when the supreme court struck down when they tried -- i forget which state but tried to establish a prayer in public schools, and supreme court struck it down because they said that there's -- it's -- what's the word i'm looking for -- goes against the establishment clause and establishes religion, and that's something that goes against the constitution, unconstitutional. so the supreme court struck that down, and cite -- you're wroting the founding fathers, and james madison, known as the quote-unquote father of the constitution, was very wary of combining church and state, and so i'm just dish want to know why you're such a proponent of having -- >> when did i propose church and state be together? >> i thought that's what you were saying in the beginning?
>> no i was saying jefferson's letter in the constitution does not separate religious people and religious values from government. i didn't say -- i didn't suggest we need the church officiaryby. i don't want the church teaching my kids how to pray or the state teaching my kids how to pray. i don't want the state to be hostile to people's faith and the state to demand we be northerlily neutral because that's not what the founders intended. the founding fathers intended for our values and our society to be influenced by religious value. they just didn't want a particular denomination of church to have that power. i'm just suggesting to you what jefferson wrote in the letter was, the wall between church and state is not what liberals interpret it to be today, which says religious people should hide in the corner. go to church every sunday, be religious, but don't bother us out here in public society. that's not what the founding fathers -- they were all religious people and they're
values reflecked what we do. but do we provide government support for a particular nomination? we shouldn't. i don't think president bush was wrong with his office for providing government support to church agencies to provide assistance to the poor because with government help comes government entanglement and government control. if a church wants help to feed the poor, that's great. they shouldn't have to rely on the federal government to do that. if you want to provide tax credits that's fine but we don't need direct money from government to religion. i would never support that. only 3 million of us and not enough to impose our lutheranism on it. but i'm suggesting historians have misinterpreted what was written. i disagree on whether there's a role or whether that's what the founding fathers intended. >> thank you very much. >> you bet, of course. >> blankston. >> you're missing the jacket,
the one you wore last thyme. >> i was wearing it earlier. >> tends to wake me up. >> as you know we discussed this before how i feel about religion and conservativism and i think they contradict each. so in regards to church and state. it sounds like what you were saying is that at least in america, our revolution succeeded because our founding fathers did have faith and that value of christianity, and that's what made us different. my question for you is if we don't have separation of church and state what stops islam from using that same gun? islamis population is growing across the world and in the united states and with islam comes zaria law. >> sure. >> can't theyy the same justification in the sharia law through congress? >> don't believe in establishment of religion and sharia law is the law of society. islam does not separate
religious law. you have one authority, both civil and religious. we have never had that. we fought that war out in the 1400s, and for the most part the right side won, and we separate religious and civil. when i say separation of church and state i'm not saying they should be together itch don't think we should have a state church. >> i'm not dig -- >> i believe there's a religious ethic that infuses our society and our philosophy that we should recognize and accept and follow but we're not going to be self governing very long. look the declaration. we hold these truths, truths, to be self-evident. all men are created equal and our rights come from goddism don't accept that, i'll be honest with you if you're athiests, i'd love to talk about this over a beer. if wore founded on the idea of god creating us, how do you reconcile that with lack of faith? i'm not saying can't be a good american and be an athiest. i'm saying that faith is so central to this country that you
can't take a letter a jefferson wrote and be hostile to faith. there's nothing in the constitution that says you can't say prayer before a basketball game. nothing in that says you can't have a bible class in a public school. it says you can't have one denomination get specific special treatment from government and impose their beliefs on everybody else down. believe that. >> nevertheless, when you think about -- let's just look at our politicians and how they vote. people who stand for rule o of law. believe in no murder no stealing no rape, and the constitution and that's how they make they're laws. what happens if i elect a politician who does not create policies and laws from this panel. sharia law has faith and they would justify it by saying creator might mind mean allah and they have to enact sharia law and what irthey're basing they're laws off that. >> the constitution would not allow that. >> the constitution wouldn't allow that, then the
constitution would not allow christianity in any sense. >> the constitution would not allow the catholic church to become the church of america and i wouldn't want that lute ran church. the constitution does not say you have to be hostile to people of faith because our documents are riddled with reference to faith and god. so if there is no god, what's with the constitution? >> it does say the creator. and -- >> and to judges -- >> for interpretation which is why we have the supreme court and liberals and democrats and argument over the constitution. so different religion could interpret that differently, if you don't allow the establishment of a religion, you could never have sharia law in this country and be constitutional. i mean, you couldn't. that's like -- no. [cheers and applause] >> just like -- langston. langston, just like you can't have cannon lieu -- law or
lutheran law or baptist law. you can't have specific denomination be a type of government. it doesn't say you have to bar people of faith. and so they can try that. and you know what? if this country was 52% muss him and they changed the constitution and they put in sharia law, if you believe in democracy issue guess that's how it happens. >> i absolutely agree with that. >> i don't -- i believe in a republic. [applause] >> and they have to amend the constitution. and you know what? if they amend the constitution to allow it, if they can actually amend the constitution to allow it, i might as well go someplace else and find a presociety because it would be dead here. if you don't allow an establishment of a specific church. and if you have the constitution to protect you, unless they change the constitution, it can't happen, and if they change the constitution, i'm with you. we're going somewhere else because america without the declaration and the constitution is not america. >> okay.
>> all right? okay. good enough. [applause] >> yes, sir. >> i'm rick, i attend college of the ozarks in missouri. i would like to know your personal opinion of david barton? i understand he is very big in going back to historical documents in america, a lot of sermons from pastors back in colonial times and a couple times with glen beck, and my question is do you think he is a good historian or do you think that he can take things out of context such as some letters he will use to promote ideas such as alert with john adams -- between him and thomas jefferson discussing the holy spirit, and he would read a part of the letter from adam, and makes it look like he supports it but if
you read -- >> like the jefferson letter on the establish. -- i think, david -- okay. i'm a history major. i'm the kind of guy that would rather read a history book than do anything else. i think david barton suggesting that these people were orthodox christians and it doesn't matter. that's between him and god. i'll find out one day whether they were orthodox christians or not but i don't think it matters as much as these men and women had the criminal world view. -- christian world view. you read the declaration, he obviously accepted a christian world view and acted on the world view and that's what shapes this country. i don't think -- he got changed. he got changed on his death bed. i don't know that. and these people sometimes go through phases. i just said you go through times when your faith is stronger then
when it's not. other times of temptation your faith gets weak, and then consequences come and you believe that. so you have to keep in mind if you take one letter, okay, as opposed to jefferson, who wrote thousands of letters and they became good friends -- enemies at the beginning because of religion. adams was much more staunch christian that jefferson was and they had differents but they wrote for 50 years. and they can change their mines and you have to read the whole thing, take the whole thing into consideration to see what they were thinking. there's time my faith has been weak. no question. but if i wrote a letter during those types, it would say something different. david tends to cherry pick instead of looking at the overall picture and make judgments i'm not sure are necessarily called for. i'm prepared to say what was in
jefferson's thoughts but he -- he -- -- that's jewish christian god, and he accepted it as a world view. >> i appreciate it. >> hi. >> two more. >> ladies first. >> my name is katrina, and i'm a singer, and i go to eastern washington university, and -- >> go eagles. >> i know you were in washington state -- i live in duval. >> i know you have not touched on the topic of so much liberals -- or liberal influence in education, but i know that you have mentioned about us being pro-active on our campuses. so, i was wondering what your
opinions are, especially at eastern washington university, -- i've had a lot of problems there with liberal professors. >> really. no doubt. >> and i was just wondering what your thoughts are and what you think we should be doing, especially not just trying to convince our peers to understand where we are coming from, our conservative point of views, but also our liberal professors house should we approach them. >> approach them as souls needing salvation. [applause] >> prayer, osmosis. no. i would say that -- i'll give you a couple of words of advice. something pope john paul ii told the polish people. be not afraid. you have to have courage. if taking on a professor means you're going to flunk the class, use discernment. it may not be worth it taking him on but remember if you're in the class with 60 people and you
get up and say, doubt that, can i show you something? of those 59 some will say, she makes sense. and they may never come and talk to you, but you never know who you'll touch that way, and you may touch member that goes on to do something really great. with your friends, you have to have a sense of humor. they don't. we do. i think you'll -- most people become conservative after real life, something happens to, the car gets stolen, government tells them how to do something with their land, they're unemployed and their taxes go up. be prepared when the window opens. when the door opens opens and se say, you know what happened to me? be friend say, have you ever thought of it this way and what if the government did this or that. have a civil discussion. if they get discivil, they have
to should they call you names and say, let's stick to the facts. don't let them drive by -- drive-by shooting. let's talk about a. talk about b later. bring them back to a and have a rational, civil discussion, and it will sink in but you have to have courage, and you have to have character, and you have to have conviction. and i am bias, but history tells me what we believe is right. it's what we believe is right. the american revolution succeeded and capitalism brought prosperity. the french revolution, communism brought us 100 million dead panel, and people said, they just didn't do it right. we can do it better. no, you can't do it at all. we're right, and you have to have faith, use discernment, patience, professors, might take an act of god but you get some
students. >> i actually have an example that i would like your opinion on if i could pursue it further. >> sure. >> last fall quarter, was in an english 101 class, and i had an a the whole quarter until the last two weeks where we were assigned to write a persuasive paper, and knowing that all of -- i was the only conservative in my class. and i seeing what topics they all chose i decided i wanted to pick a big conservative topic, so i chose to write on why -- would make a good president and that didn't sit well with most of them dish knew that -- i knew that would happen -- my feet fewer failed me and i had to retake the class. i went through an appeal process and the english department tried to justify everything and they all sat there and lied, and i was just wondering if i should,
like, try to keep pursuing it or just -- >> i could weep doing it. you did the right thing. people die nor their beliefs. you flunked a class. i know that's big and significant and i understand that, but you did the right thing, and you don't know how many students in that class maybe learned something from your paper or said, i think she's right. it's group think in college. at it group think. so, i would keep it up. and you have to have -- not all battles should be fought. is this time to fight the battle? if it is, fight and never give up. >> thank you. >> all right. >> the young britains foundation. i take it you think that if we're -- it makes is easier to have small states but do you also believe the converse, if we roll back the states it can lead to greater virtue and have the
two fit together? >> i think it's harder to roll back a state and expect virtue to appear than to have virtue appear and then roll back the state because if people are not imbued with a sense of responsibility and virtue this, first thing will be to bring back the state itch don't think you can force people -- you can't force people to be virtues by taking their tax money or saying, it your town, not ours. that might happen in some cases but the state isn't going to say, we're rolling back to make your mow virtuous. roll can would took teach you a lesson wow want a bigger state because you'll be confused, your check won't come and you'll say bring bang government. it has to be virtue. we have to walk the talk you have to show e-mail helping the poor, dealing with this issue, being responsible in hour i thrive say this is what we need more of and hope it catches, and i think as it catches on, if you
have 40 people helping the poor in your town, at some point they're going to sigh why do we need the welfare office, and the poor people would say i get more sympathy and help from you than the boy, who gives me a check, and we lead by example, and -- i don't trust the state. no state i think has ever wanted to reduce itself. let's get smaller. they have a purpose for that and reason for doing that so i would not trust them. i think we have to preach virtue and practice it and show people how it works so much better. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you, all. [cheers and applause]
>> eye tried to look at this in the larger perspective and see is there any trends and themes that one through our relationship? and what the ultimate goal of trying to write as an objective account of what transpired, warts and all, on both sides. >> david crist on 30 years of hostility between the u.s. and iran. the twilight war. s night at 9:00.
peter schweizer was the final speaker at this year's young american conference. his latest book, "throw them all out" uncovered insider trading in congress and discusses the challenges facing young conservatives. this is an hour. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. everybody having fun this week? yeah. good. i'm glad to hear that. well, as you've been sitting here learning from a lot of
incredible people, incredible leaders and thinkers, i've been watching tv. i've been watching the olympics, and there's something strange about watching the olympics, even during this political season when we're facing a national election. you think i'd be watching cable news but i've been watching the olympics, watching the swimming, gymnastics, soccer, basketball, the other night, an american won the gold medal in judo. and she stood up on the podium. she stood up on the podium, and it was an amazing display because she stood up on the podium and they started playing the national anthem and she was utterly reduced to tears and you could just see the relief that was inside of her. and is a watched that, i thought, what is it about the olympics that captured my imagination, the imagination of so many other people who watched it? i think it's because it's one of the few areas left in life where
you can display grit, determination, hard work, and you will be applauded for your excellence. think about that for a minute. when they go and stan on the podium to receive their gold medal, there's nobody there saying they don't deserve the gold medal or need to share half of it with someone else. [applause] >> there's no one saying that they had an unfair advantage because they were, you know, created with certain physical skills or capabilities. it's the celebration, and the fact that someone has worked hard and is the best in the world is something that is celebrated, not something that is scorned, and i wondered, is a watched her win and so many other athletes win, what's going to happen when they go to white house? is the president going to say to them you didn't earn that? i certainly hope not. i certainly don't think so. but what i'd like to talk to you about tonight, you learned about
policy and ideas and how washington works. you probably discussed the gross national product, the tax rates in this country. i'm going to talk to you tonight about what i think is the biggest struggle you will face over the next 20 years, because i believe that your generation -- and i don't say this to exaggerate one single bit -- your generation is going to determine whether the united states as we know it is sustained. or whether we drift off into something else and just another ordinary country. and i'm going to ask you to think about it in terms of what they have on the training center out in colorado for our olympic athletes because you see over the entryway where the athletes go and work and train, there's a quotation from henry david tour row which reads you cannot dream yourself into a character. you must hammer and forge yourself into one.
>> anybody who wants to tell you that excellence, that winning your ideas, saving your country, preserving traditional values-is going to be easy, is lying to you. but it's going to be worthwhile, every bit as worthwhile as it is for the athlete who stands on the podium at the olympics, and what i'd like to talk to you tonight about what that struggle is. the struggle i'm going to contend to you today is a struggle of whether you're going to choose to worry about the spirit or you're going to worry about the materials. what do i mean by that? i think if you look through american history, you will see that every 80 years or so, the american people have had a choice to make. are they going to strive for and fight for freedom? or are they going to live by material comforts? and choose that option? and each time in the past, in
those 80-year spans the american people have chosen to fight. to choose the spirit over the material and the comforts. well, the last battle was 80 years ago, and now the battle that is brewing is the one that your generation is going to face. and i want you to take time now to just think a little bit about this battle that often times we fail to see. now, the greatest stories and the greatest decisions i think in american history have been when americans have chosen principle and the ideas that inculcate american values over the material comforts, and i would begin with the american war for independence. you've all stud yesterday it in your hit books and you're well ware of the founding fathers and the sacrifices that were made. what often times is ignored is those who lived in colonial america, who chose not to fight for independence, what was their
rational? some was the commitment to the monarchy. someb move forward another 80 years and the american civil war. there were those in the north who believed that the preservation of the union, the issues related to slavery and other issues, were worth fighting for but there were those who did not think they were worth fighting for. they chose the material comfort over the commitment to american
principles and values. the value of union, of the american nation, the value of individualism and the value of freedom, and again, those who fought for those values, lost materially by doing so. move forward another 80 years approximately. to the world war ii generation. that was the generation who fought through the depression, stormedded the beaches at norm dandy and won world war ii. there were those who said we honest fight that fight, it was not our concern. some didn't want to sacrifice maybe their sons, they didn't want to sacrifice materially. they were unconcerned about the principles upon which the american founding was based. move forward now another 80 years. from world war ii, and where are we? we're in the present day. and i'm going to ask yourself, i'm going to ask you to ask
yourselves, are you willing to choose the spirit of freedom over material comfort? are you prepared to do so? are you prepared to make the sacrifice? i asked this question lots of times to students. why are we -- why are you committed to the free enterprise system? imagine for a minute -- it's never happened and never will but just imagine for a minute that someone created an economic system that was not based on free markets but that actually created more prosperity. would you embrace it? would you be willing to give up your freedom and your individualism so you could have greater prosperity? sadly a lot of people would say, yes. this is the choice that your generation is going face. and i will tell you a lot of people my age and older, unfortunately, don't think that you guys are up to it. they say you're selfish, you're
materialistic, you don't care, they say you're ignorant of american history. are they right? are they right? i would say no. i would say no. and i would say, absolutely no. [applause] you know there was a book that came out a few years ago written by tom brokaw called the greatest generation. a book that was written for the world war ii generation, and brokaw's argument was that this was the greatest generation in american history because they fought and sacrificed during world war ii. now, i've been fortunate to know many people from that generation, and one of those that i knew very well, who became a mentor in a sense to me, wase named casper weinberger. he served in world war ii under
general douglas macarthur and became secretary of the defense under president ronald reagan. and i talked to cap a lot of times about what was going on in the world, the circumstances of his youth, and about half a dozen years ago i asked him about what was going on with the american military to go back to that time as you may remember, may be aware, the wars in iraq and afghanistan were very hot. there were a lot of americans dying. a lot of major battles and some people who were in a sense losing their nerve and saying, you know, we may not be up to this. we better pull back. and i remember asking cap, i said, how would you, having been the secretary of defense, having served in this generation of world war ii, how would you compare america's soldiers to those of the greatest generation? are they as good? and you know what cap told me? he said, no, peter they're not as good. they're better.
you know why they're better? he said we were drafted. these americans volunteered. they chose to go there. [applause] >> and i would say to you tonight, that's your generation. the soldiers that are overseas doing this are your generation. they're not my generation. and you need to take pride and recognize and reject all the naysayers who are saying that you aren't up to the task, and that you don't embrace the american spirit. i know you do. and i know you can. and i know you will. make an enormous difference in the challenges that we face in the future. now, in washington, dc, here, both political parties, president of the united states right now, president obama, will talk all the time about the need for sacrifice.
usually this means somebody else's sacrifice. in terms of somebody else paying taxes or somebody else dealing with a government edict. very rarely does it entail any sacrifice on their parts. well, your generation, in what you have done overseas, is going beyond the talk and is actually showing that you're willing to make this commitment. and i say that those that are in iraq and in afghanistan and who fought for this country, who have done so voluntarily, are choosing not to make a decision because going there is going to make them a lot of money, not going there because it's just a career choice. they're going there because they have chosen the spirit of freedom over materialism. and they've chosen honor over comfort. and they've chosen to struggle to survive being free, protecting their country, than to being comfortable back at
home. and that's the question that america is going to face. and it transcends the issues we're facing today, whether it's what kind of healthcare system we're going to have, what kind of tax policy we're going to have, but even more importantly than that, how are we going measure whether the american experiment is working? you see, the american ideal, the american spirit is one that says, we are all equal. why? because we have been created so by our creator. [applause] >> and in front of -- [applause] >> and in front of the law, we are equal for that reason. that is the measure of equality. now, it's always struck me as odd because people on the left want to use a different yardstick. their yardstick is, you measure equality based on material things. the equality that matters most
to them is income equality and economic equality, and i find that so ironic because they're the ones that call us materialistic. but my point is this. those are the two choices that we will face, and those are the two choices that we are going to have to make, as to whether the country is going to embrace the equality that is the american tradition or the equality that is what the left has to offer. we're also going to have to choose how much do we really value freedom? are we going to be seduced by the idea that giving away freedom for some comfort is okay? would we rather -- would we as individuals rather be struggling, free men or fat slaves? would we rather be those individuals who are working to instill the kind of values that lead to independence, and excellence, or the kind of
society that encourages dependence, and tears down those of excellence. and i would contend to you that issue is very much open to question. as much as it was open to question in 1776. during the american civil war. or during world war ii. now, because we embrace and need to embrace the notion that the spiritual values of freedom are more important than the material world, and the material success, it means that we embrace the notion and have to embrace the notion that there are certain absolute values. there are certain things that are just absolutely right and certain things that are just absolutely wrong. otherwise, it's very easy to drift into a world where you're willing to compromise freedom for comfort. you know, i had a discussion a couple of years ago when i was speaking on a college campus.
a rather angry young lady came up to me and -- after i talk about the need for absolute values and she talk to me about the fact that, no, absolute values aren't absolute. they're really a tool of oppression. they're a tool of oppression used by white males, by the ruling class to control others. and as that she rejected completely the idea that there were any absolute values. that there were any absolute rights and any absolute wrongs because everything is relative and you can always find a reason when something might be justified. at which point i told her, have an shouldn't salute statement for you, you can adeor disagree my statement was, rape is always wrong. of course she couldn't disi agree with me. but the point is this, there are absolutes and we may debate what those absolutes are but if at
our core we're not prepared to say there are absolute things we're fighting for. then guess what? the fight for freedom is over. because we will always, as flawed human beings, choose the cowardly, of compromise, comfort, and material -- some relative material abundance, over the struggle of freedom. it's only a belief and an absolute truth that is going to leave an individual like our founding fathers to give up their material possessions to fight for something that is far, far more important. i would also contend to you that these absolute values spring from an american tradition. these are not new ideas. these are ideas that are inherent to the western notion. the western notion of judeo^- christian values. and what do i mean by that? i mean that the founding fathers were very clear that the belief in the power and the value of the individual springs directly
from the idea that each person has value, and why does each person have value? because we decided it was so? no. the idea that individualism and central uof the individual springs directly from the judeo^- christian idea, that everyone by their crater -- creator was created for a purpose and everyone has esquall value. this is a value common today and we hear it all the time but if you look over the expanse of world history, if you look over the expansion -- expanse of the globe today, you can quickly realize how rare that view is, and i would content to you that absent those traditions, and those beliefs, it's very, very hard to have the absolute values you need to fight for the principles of freedom. now, i have a confession to make to you tonight. and that confession is that your
generation is going to have a very difficult time, and you know why? your parents are not going to like i told you this. our generation failed you. we failed you. because you know, you are a generation that is growing up saddled with debt. debt that other generations didn't have to face. and you are growing up in a society where freedom is still prevalent and your parents are working to instill those values in you, but freedom is waiverring and that's because those of our generation didn't do all we needed to do to preserve it so your generation to. >> host: the olympic install, it's going to have to run a race with extra weights on your legs. your generation has to swim in the pool with weight around your torso, and it's going to dedifficult but i have supreme
confidence that you are up to it and, would encourage you to to remind yourself you're looking for finish line and the prize that is going to move you to ultimate victory. so, my question to you is tonight, that if our generation has saddled you with debt, if we have allowed a culture of dependency to be taken hold of in our society, are you, this generation, going to tolerate those kinds of beliefs in our country? are you going to embrace them and allow them to thrive? and i hope not. because ultimately that is the fate that is going to be determined. you see, it was thomas jefferson who reminded us that we are a government of, what, self-government, and self-government, as jefferson said, means we for be the guardians of our own liberty. you see, if you're looking for
members of congress, however noble, however committed they are to freedom, if you're looking to courts, to judges, however they are committed to these ideas, if you are looking to the president or to bureaucrats, to preserve your freedom, you're going to be disappointed, because it's very, very difficult for freedom that flies in the corridors of power. it's going to be up to you. it's going to be up to you to communicate ideas and push those ideas and encourage those ideas in a way that is appealing and clear and true, to the people of your generation. and thomas jefferson made this point of the importance of ideas, and he made the point that the reason that the american revolution, that the american experiment, that the american constitution was so unique, was because it was predicated on these ideas, not material things, and he made the point in a letter to his friend,
that ideas are far superior to material things because if you have a thing and you share it with a friend, and you give it with a friend, you no longer have that thing. but as he wrote to a friend, if you have an idea, if you have principles and values and you do share those with your friends no one will possess the less for giving it. in other words, you share these values and these principles and ideas with your friends, they can embrace them with you and you're giving up none of them. and as he put in that letter, he who likes his taper at mine receives light without darkening mine. the point being if you share these ideas with a friend it's going to light up their lives as well and it will not take anything from you, and so my question to you is, are you going to carry that torch? are you going to be the generation that's committed to doing that? are you going to take what you learn here this week, what you
learn when you read and when you study and when you listen to speeches and people on the news cable channels talking about great issues, are you going to take these issues and carry the torch to ensure that they survive to a next generation? i will contend to you that if you followed the course of my generation, and you compromise on these issues and you're willing to give up liberty for some comforts, ultimately the american torch won't be passed, and america will end up on the ash heap of history. so it's up to you, and i challenge you to do this, and i thank you very, very much for listening to me. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> i understand we have
incredibly thoughtful and lively group and i would love to take any questions or comments or thoughts that people might have. it could be on my talk it could be on issues, something you think has been overlooked. but any thoughts you might have on the challenges we face or things you have learned or issues that have come up that there might be a disagreement on. right over here. >> hi. ben smith. i was just wondering if the law based on your book -- i was wondering what kind of effect it's going to have on insider trade. >> the act is called the stock act. i wrote a book that members of congress and staff members were incredibly good at picking the right stock at the right time. there was an academic study done that showed that the average united states senator was far better at get are -- getting far better stock returns than most hedge funds and the question was, is it because these guys
are so incredibly brilliant? which i doubt, or something else? what you find is that, for example, during the 2009 healthcare debate, on obamacare, people on both sides of the issue, who were putting that bill together, who are amending it, who were determining what was going to come out of committee, they were trading healthcare stocks at the same time. ...
it. >> i don't think that sec will go after a powerful member of congress but it is a great opportunity for empowerment. they now have to disclose whether they buy or sell the health care stocks. we have to hold them accountable. the media will not. a small step forward. more pass to be done. [applause] >> you spoke about our
choices for the direction of our country. with the liberal influence on our can pisses it seems conservatives do not stand up much. who so what can we do to the college campus where we're the minority? >> you cannot limit the influence but to the whole problem with speech codes and intolerance of the campus left. i abn that is a weakness. there's a reason some campuses do not want to the
honest debate. they know they do not -- will not win. through the '50s and '60s with barry goldwater there were articles saying that conservatism was a mental illness. the only coherent healthy psychological view is liberalism. >> i had to breed of book called the republican brain. >> there you go. >> they took kids from nursery school and talk to those kids 20 years later the professor to the left determined the ones that
were whiny kids were conservatives and the self adjusted word that democrats. in my book i show the data and you come to lead different conclusion. even that conservatives who their children more than liberals. [laughter] but this type of ridiculousness is indicative that people do not want to discuss the issue. they would rather insults the character of people. you need to keep fighting. it is not new.
but it is a sign of weakness. that they dismiss you is not a sign of strength. also realize there are lots of students in your class better sitting silent but they agreed. there is a silent majority. >> i am a big fan of the olympics. i am trying to keep up that with every medal the u.s. athletes when they have to pay taxes. >> that's right. >> other countries the fees are waived. how was that fair for our
athletes to bring us that honor? >> that is a good question. if you look at the olympics the economic system, michael phelps swam in a community pools and those were built with tax dollars. [laughter] he comes from the upper-class background so now they he has won 21 medals he did not burn all of that. he should pay. this is the rationale. i greet completely. this is an accomplishment and a success. let's celebrate. [applause] i think the vast majority
agree. oftentimes we can learn about sports. i cannot wait for football season. [applause] no matter the politics and has anybody said i want the referee to decide who wins? and balance the penalties on both sides. nobody says that but that is their view of economics. the olympics give us a great opportunity what do you like? do they have a certain
respect? the gold medal or the bronze medal or those who were there? getting there is difficult. why can't they do this same thing to somebody who has the ice-cream shop who employs people achieve being financial success. their different gives a and abilities. i do think it is under. >> memory say graduate. many questions but what do you think of the discussion of the mitt romney tax returns? and looking to congress and the deals they are making?
>> great question. they harry reid approach is absurd. like me on television saying this senator beats his wife. now prove it is not true. i have been very clear and consistent. a big believer in transparency. he is not required by law to release the names of his campaign but the lawyers but he ought to. his theme of crony capitalism which i think is in issue ago care what party cronyism, it is wrong. [applause] and we should hold them to the same standard.
harry reid approaches absurdity but i do believe in transparency in we should expect to leaders to bring clarity to what financial entanglements they may have. look at solyndra and the government grants. a lot went to the obama brothers. it is important to know who is close to the president. >> thank you for having us. i became a citizen last year. >> terrific. [applause] >> recently ran to be a
delicate but was told by the good old boys that i could not make it. because we have to be aware what goes on in our system. i ran a and campaigned and was elected as the first alternate. i will be going to the convention. but for that g.o.p. to step up to be more reclusive to the new generation, the president said a border redoing wrong today? are they scared negative if young people. >> part of the challenge is there has been a lot of success over 20 years.
when ronald reagan was running for president he did the enormous amount of speaking to young people and young america foundation and was eager to do it. the with his election conservative is a really group now we have this infrastructure free-market economics parts of it is too comfortable. there is resistance to change that was not there 25 years ago because there were not as many institutions. so we have to think the same
way. we are ruled by laws and principles. not by men. we can honor and respect them but ultimately it is not personalities the principal. the infuse shouldn't this fabulous with the new energy and dynamic. i applaud you. thank you. >> you suggested we were a part of the greatest generation because of the shoulder at -- shoulders as we are among the great one's. we cannot come close to risk our lives but anything hafez
noble? >> i would not equate anything hear what our soldiers are doing overseas. [applause] but the spirit of what they embrace, it is remarkable. if you have not read the stories, it is unbelievable. they have chosen to be there. it is remarkable. the fear is uncompromising when they protect their comrades they are there and driven by the purpose. that means you are on campus or on location people will ridiculed or call you names.
respectfully, not shouting but stand up for your principles and share those ideas. run for local political office. run for the school board. you were a student recently. many have not been in school over 40 years. farrah tied in with the labor union. for someone like you to be committed to ideals modern america is a target rich environment. [applause] >> how much did the young america foundation influence your political slot?
>> it was terrific. this gentleman right here turned to me. [applause] he turned to me from the business administration computer science major to some vague interested in ideas. my father was horrified. absolutely horrified. but it transformed said trajectory of my life. i never thought i would be an author to be investigative journalism. then i realized here is an opportunity to have a purpose in life and have tremendous satisfaction. i would never equate but the
principle is the same. you are choosing to give up comforts because you believe in something more important than yourself. making the same decisions from the american revolution , civil war and world war ii. it is the same principle. embrace that. all under that. this is a great place to start. a resource. the campus seems isolated and alone. remember these people that are with you. you are not alone. [applause] >> i go to the university of michigan but my question
analyst is we believe in american exceptional lonesome but more and more young people believe it is a myth. how do we get people to understand. >> this is a great question. with anybody thinks american exceptional lonsome israel. you are just ignorant. [applause] no other way to put it. on this day. where is a system normally like ours system? if they say europe my parents were from europe. i spent a lot of time there. it is not the united states.
they use the same argument we compare the gross national product. the only measuring point* is material. look at opportunity, freedom, lack of constraint in the united states is very different than your up. i would ask them all they came to that conclusion. how much have you traveled? how familiar are you with how they operate? i saw a report 40% that
house to be abided by is passed by bureaucrats. is that representative government? if no law is passed. tough luck. number one, ask them where do people vote to. >> where our people having children? if you look for the ultimate vote the biggest optimism if you are having children. europe and japan are aging rapidly. they know it is not bright. we still have enough bursts
excluding immigration we are slightly more than reproducing our population. the american people have more optimism than any other advanced society in the world. [applause] >> i love herman cain. as a small businessman. what do you think of term limits for all elected officials? [applause] >> when that debate started 20 years ago i was opposed but i have changed my view because when i first became interested i felt a lot of issues it was a function of
ideas and talk to people and we would win the debate. the reason government grows is a cultural problem of washington d.c.. stan evans had a great line. the problem with washington d.c. when you get here it is a cesspool but after a while it is a hot tub. that happens allot. there is a cultural problem that washington and can be very seductive. the only way to get a handle is through term limits. we needed true citizen legislature. when somebody says i believe
in this person i say no. yes. i support term limits the. >> good evening. the year all looking for different things to do on our campuses. but when you were involved was there anything you found effective more creative for unique? >> you are so much more creative and we were. we did a lot of lectures with the anniversary of the berlin wall we did a display and people pretend to be the
function. stayed true. [applause] >> i am from university of florida. i find it interesting material versus the spirit when our view of freedom and economics which limits progress. >> teethirteen kid this or to go the brave her route or to be more with the spirit instead of sacrifice there are people on campus
alternately they're not interested in ideas or politics or washington d.c.. those people are hard to reach. your generation is idealistic. we have challenges but it is not the great depression. i see young people trying to figure out something that is bigger than themselves. the environmentalist movement if you look at it, is a religious movement. they just chose something different. down people are looking for
something to believe them. the point* we want to make their is an incredible connection you cannot have political control. it goes hand in hand. if you say you have political freedom with no autonomy you can take the rights away. in my view, just like brake part but i like the idea of appealing to idealism. the great thing about our position is the idealism is
not just a commitment to freedom but the pathway to prosperity. they go hand in hand. [applause] >> throughout your investigation of congress was the corruption and president before the election or after they had the temptations? >> that is a great question. of the title is throw them all out to that implies if we've white says slate clean. we need to have a zero tolerance policy to get them out. i don't think that is
ultimately a problem to elect people with better character. it would not be hard. but the bigger problem is the culture. washington d.c. for the first time is now the wealthiest city in america ugh just passing silicon valley. seven out of 10 the wealthiest counties border washington d.c.. the cesspool becomes a hot tub. there are some very good people who resisted this and
are fighting for the good fight. bringing in a new crop we have the same problem. zero lot of people came with good ideals and values but it was too tempting to approach the wealth. >> your comments specifically on europe and the european union in my lifetime they come from the english speaking nations. >> absolutely. [applause] >> united kingdom has the
best capacity to be the ally. wouldn't that put out the european union? [applause] >> that is a great question. i was saying graduate school in the uk when that debate took place. you give up british sovereignty and someone from the u.k. to entrust the french with your political liberties lahood. [laughter] >> i do have friends in france but the culture is different. [laughter] i would embrace the india in
most hypocritical policy of the above the administration that romney could use? >> how much time do we have. [laughter] i wrote a book that was the profile of liberal hypocrisy. the point* was we need to set to high standards and sometimes we fall short. but to use chile it makes life worse. if you be hypocritical comet it to will probably hurt you. but hypocrisy is a good thing and your life gets better. so many liberals who favor taxing the wealthy of all to
avoid pain with those taxes. there is so many examples have many are following the issue of with chick-fil-a? >> this is the lack of principle that exist. rahm emanuel says and expresses his first amend right to the marriage should be between a man and woman and immediately e declares the sonat chicago values. we do not will come
chick-fil-a year three hours later they are working with the nation of islam. what is their view? it is far less tolerant and the head of chick-fil-a. and somebody on the other side of the i/o expresses the views than in this bigotry. that is an interesting question because that view expressed is what the barack obama expressed 2008. values, tax policy, the question the success and prosperity because silicon valley give louis large
donations but somebody who had economic success needs to be taxed higher. one more question. >> frame wondering if the stock act covered congressmen giving out or selling insider information? >> no it does not. another loophole. people are incredibly creative. if you want to become a lobbyist you have to wait two years. but if you leave office the next day you can open a political intelligence firm someone that works for
investors and finds out what will pass and sews the information to investors. they don't have to wait two years. breaking the back of people to get rich off of big government is the critical issue. there is no longer the financial motive for big government. if you look out for the economic prosperity you cannot. you have to expand government.
the bilateral cooperation in. it will enhance the forces to operate together and assure dominance of the sky is for decades to come. the minister and i talked areas and for greater alliance co-operation including information security and ballistic missile defense. the minister and i discussed the advisor realignment plan outlined in the 2 + 2 statement. this was a major accomplishment. both nations agree on the
need to rapid the implement the terms to move forward with a structure in the asia pacific region. of key reason is the deployment of the marine corps to okinawa. ihop is a critical aircraft flying operations around the world. on the front line in afghanistan as well as communities here in the united states. the osprey is important. it will enable marines to fly faster and it can refuel in flight and stay aloft
much longer. it is a one of the kind platform with the speed, the range, the payload to cover the vast distances of the western pacific and reform disaster relief, humanitarian aid and our other roles other critical for cry have flown the os spray and number of times. afghanistan and the united states. in san diego i flew over community use from washington d.c. two york and back. the minister has the opportunity to in see the impressive capabilities. we will always respect the concerns and circumstances
on both sides to develop practical solutions to allow the vital relationship to move forward in the face of challenges. so with safety concerns we immediately responded in a respectful manner. we went to work out a joint way forward in a manner befitting fed rate alliance. with shipping the aircraft both agreed to deliver but the japanese government we will refrain from any flight
operations over the short-term. the results will be presented to the japanese government and the operations are hopefully reconfirmed. and then both present to the japanese government sometime this month. this demonstrates the strength of the alliance. our relationship with japan is one of the keys to expanding our presence and a reflection of how much we've value the trust of japan and the japanese people. we have made very clear one
of the important key use to rebalance is united states japan relationship. in that spirit i look forward to day-long and productive relationship with mr. morimoto with the friendship and shared values linking our countries together. my goal is to strengthen one of the strongest alliances with the have in the south pacific. thank you. >> [speaking japanese] >> translator: live with
like to say if you thing is a and i will try a2 avoid repeating was secretary panetta said. we talked about the security issues in the meeting. and good japan alliance. it continues to be very important to. as a whole. in order to meet rapid the changing environment in order to maintain the stability, we're going to
can do say whether not you have any assurance this in private to or is there a time of no imminent attack and iran? it was more public posturing than what you understood in private? >> with regards to osprey we have the planes there and we will not fly them until we've present the report finn can get the approval to conduct flight operations. we will work closely we're together of when the
operations began. on the second issue the number of countries obviously a lot of forces at to play. at the same time and number of opportunities from tunisia and egypt these are countries trying to move forward with reform. and israel i had a number of discussions. the purpose was to discuss what was happening in the region and other issues relating to the cyanide and
concerns about iran. we will not allow iran to develop a nuclear weapon. we're working with the international community to implement that position through sanctions, are the efforts to receive a diplomatic solution number number:we made clear. should the efforts fail and iran proceeds, all options are on the table including military options. our position is that should be the last resort. the result of our