tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 7, 2014 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
we were inside and we were talking about his love for president reagan. he is just almost jumping on the table talking but reagan. as soon as we got out in the as soon as we got into the hall, it was almost a whisper. you are the president of the studio. i realized then the kind of currency that you are talking about there. do we see something going on, baby tv response a little bit faster. we have seen that a little bit more. doug dynasty, the biggest reality show -- "duck dynasty," the biggest reality show post up star,"e "pawn i'm just standing," pulling out things like "pawn has 6 million viewers a week.
2.9 million. things that lean to the right, people just respond to it. twice i think that case could be made. ok, that's >> i think that case can be made. >> ok, great. [laughter] >> i think the point that fred made, let's call a closet conservatives. it is harder sometimes to talk about the many hallways then it is to watch it on your tv. i think that is true. i think that is something that starts unfortunately sometimes with education in this country, slanted in my opinion in a different direction then maybe i would want it, especially in "higher education." kind of people grow up afraid to maybe speak out for their values in an open session. >> it is like family films. "frozen" just passed $1 billion in the box office.
the family films, for the most part, they make a lot of money. if you are a businessman, it would seem to me that that is where you would apply your wares. " your finances behind more family films, but they are not there. >> i think we also see a lot of focused on that, but we also see stuff hope -- focus on, i have a friend in the audience who did a sure movie called "american dream." it had 12 million views on youtube, kind of a right- centered thing on the economy. what about going out and out routes and doing more stuff that way? stuff of that nature, going to youtube, going to -- making shorter films, things of that nature. >> i think there is a limited market for short films. i think it is that way even for films on the other side of the fence. i think you are right -- tv
series or more sustainable, they are more long-term. really does determine whether people will actually go out and -- it because what we see there can be censorship from the institutions as well. they will not get behind it because it is too edgy or has to be this, and we tend to sort of kill our own. i think that is the biggest problem is that you will see the films that are promoted, maybe not from this group here, tends more "here, make whatever you want, and we just love it no matter what it is." and on the side, whittle it down, oh, no, you're not accepted. i think it tends to be a very --ited group that watches speaking of short films, those are definitely dominated by the liberal community. >> let me switch a little bit here and i'm going to throw
it down to jerry. jerry, if you were put in charge of the republican party for a moment, -- >> for how long? [laughter] >> good question. how would you -- it seems there isn't engaged on the right from popular culture even though culture is so far up string -- upstream from politics. chat would you do to coa some of these guys looking to be president in 2016? hirerst of all, i would some good writers. a lot has to do with the written word. would love that opportunity to just be in charge for 24 hours. [laughter] backbone is one thing i would look for. [applause] looking for people who will stand up for the rights of their fellow citizens, as fred mentioned earlier. it seems that it is all about them, their careers, and what
surrounds them in washington. and maybe i would pass executive order or write an executive order -- [laughter] basically saying that mondays through thursdays, liberals could not speak. [laughter] >> it does seem like the right has not engage the culture -- i mean, we can sit here and say we have not had a shot, but have we really got into the industry? young people coming into this industry that are right of center, the decision-makers at the top -- how do we get those kids here, 20-year-old kid thinking of law school or becoming a doctor, how do we get them to go to the entertainment industry if they are right of center? >> let me go back a little bit to your previous question. it all rolls and together, i thek, but when you are in
active pursuit of politics, you always have to pursuit of -- two the substance and the political aspect. if i do what the answer was in terms of clever political aspect of it, i probably would be speaking from that podium over there instead of sitting over here. it on the substance part, think it is important that our folks understand that the cultural issues are at the root of so many of our other problems in this country. you can't have most of the children in this country being born out of wedlock and expect to have a good educational system. you can't have people brought up -- [applause] without ever experiencing any
-- ipline or leadership or would say fathers in many cases -- forome and expect to them to, and the teachers handle those kinds of things. people understand the global economy that we have and the competition worldwide that we and, that education is more more important. everybody talks about that. well, you can't just birth that full born. you got to have something previous to a decent classroom and a good teacher, and that has to do with the cultural issues. is at the core of some of our economic problems. certainly the jobless situation, people having trouble making the transition, moving out of the budget world into the automobile and out of that into the spaceship tomorrow or what not. peoplegot to be agile,
have to know some things, people have to have a decent education, but we are not providing that. and people think it is simple because we are not clever enough to provide a nice school building and pay the teachers a little more or something like that -- all of which are good things, but it is really not at the heart of the problem. the heart of the problem is our teachers are often times having to be police officers more than teachers. [applause] kids who are not interested in learning who have never had any examples in their lives. so what you do about that and how you handle that -- that is for people smarter than me to needs tot, that there be an underlying understanding that that is what is going on. there are some trends going on here in our country that affect everything else -- the economic
issues, the social issues as we like to call them. >> but it seems like the culture is leading on that first and foremost and everything falling behind it that way rather than vice versa. >> exactly. >> so even though we are at a political event here, i need many senators, congressmen, who thanked me for the work we did on "2016," and they will always be like -- you guys are ahead of us that way. and i think sometimes, whatever reason and the republican side, they have kind of switch to that around. asy see entertainment superfluous rather than being ahead of it. just one example, we have books downstairs being sold. the "new york times" bestsellers, 250,000 copies, and then you have gerald so manyo sold
copies of "schindler's list," but you don't see that down there. cpac has headed this panel, i really appreciate that, but how do we start -- >> i tell you -- by every risen you're going to persecutedmovie.com. no, seriously, i know it is my movie, you expect me to say that, and i appreciate that, but i really think whether it is that or this other project you guys are working on -- you have to start at that level one by one and to we get overwhelmed by it. ofse who tell the stories society roles society, and they are telling the stories at the box office. we have got to remote those stories. the ideology is so strong in the conservative party but the ability to convert that into stories that kids and young people can relate to and say oh, my gosh, for example, i really -- i recently screened "persecuted" with a very
prominent person, and he came out of the theater and he was scratching his head and he was thinking and he said you know, these are all things that have been inside my head that you mentioned. and i hope i am that man, but i wonder if i am not. and really the movie being about an evangelist to stand up for what he believes in the against isintrusive government that trying to censor everything is when he identifies with and that man had to pay a serious cost for what he believes in. he was persecuted, he was hunted, he lost all of his security, and i think that is what we are trying to do here is try to convert that into a story that young kids can wake up and say oh, my gosh, i actually have a responsibility for these freedoms i am enjoying? i mean, all of these people with a strong agenda that disagree with me and my beliefs are enjoying those freedoms. they are enjoying those in hollywood, they are enjoying them everywhere. and they don't maybe realize a lot of times that there is a reason they have those freedoms
and they come at a cost. that is what we are trying to do with "persecuted" is help them realize that, that oh, my gosh, i might have to stand up for what i believe. and i think that is where we are starting at least. [applause] >> the anything about this movie is a lease a lot of things out there that you have to question. you have to ask what happened here, what is he going to say here, and if you go to these, what i like about this is you should be held have a great discussion with your friends, with your neighbors, with your kids and get them involved and hopefully the kids will ask questions about it and do the same thing at school, and that is what i like about this. >> we are going to wrap up here. we're going to show now, and this is for jerry and i, this is our new movie, we are going to show the trailer here. we are debuting in here at cpac, so you will be one of the first audiences to see it.
we are pretty excited about that. it almost like the guy you were talking about will be the next speaker after the trailer, but go ahead and let's run the trailer for "america" if we can. ♪ >> and we are calling it iphone. >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. >> one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. .> i have a dream >> ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country. >> war with germany has ended. >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. >> all men are created equal. by thee endowed creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are
badly we need right now a washington, a lincoln, a reagan, where we don't have them. we do have us. [applause] i am an immigrant, and i just love america. in the last scene of the "great gatsby," fitzgerald talks about the dutch sailors who kind of came around the corner and a sense of wonder and astonishment that filled them when they first saw what he called the "agreement breast of the new world. i was 17 years old when i first set eyes on america, and i felt that same sense of astonishment and wonder. he somehow even then i knew that
this was a country in which i could be the architect of my own destiny. that feeling has somehow never left me and it lies behind with my writing and my work. we are living in an american era . any were that began at this moment of american superiority the moment that began with world war ii. at this moment of american superiority, look around the world, it seemed like we not only seeing threats on the horizon but newly emerging empires, the consolidation, for example, of the islamic empire. putin in russia and ukraine and the crimea and an attempt to revive russia as a global power. now, the remarkable thing is not
what is going on over there, but the response to it coming from over here. the thesis that we laid out in the film "2016" was that it is a great mistake to understand obama as a mere bungler, as a mere amateur, as someone who sort of does not know what is going on will stop if that is what you think about obama, you end up lecturing him about the geography of ukraine, reminding him that putin used to be a kgb officer. he knows that. the point about obama is that he shrinkbody who wants to america's footprint in the world. [applause] america, asremake he put it. that is his ideology, so we predicted that in "2016 to say thatot happy those predictions have in a way come to pass. obama is almost like an actor playing out our script.
and he is not going to change. he reminds me a bit of the toy soldier who walks into the wall and keeps going. he is a creature of ideology. ," obamaer we did "2016 was very upset. he did a big diatribe against me on his website, barackobama.com. but if he was upset about that film, wait until he sees the new one. [cheers and applause] filmwhat is this "america" all about? it is a spectacular film. it will be at a completely different level than "2016," but it is taking on the central argument of american progressivism. letterman merge that this argument was not invented by obama. he did not make it. it made him. and what if this argument? ais argument at the core is
moral indictment of america and of the free market system. modernly what progressives are alleging is that america and the wealth of .merica is based on theft there is a historical part of this argument. we stole the country from the indians. thetole the labor of african americans. america took half of mexico in the mexican war. american foreign-policy even now is based upon taking the resources and the oil of other countries. and the free market system is based on theft, depriving people of what obama called "their fair share." so think about this. it is almost like here you are at home, you are watching tv, and a bunch of government guys show up at your door and they start taking your for mature and taking your car and you are like what are you doing? they are like, you know your paycheck that you got last
month? you did not err in that. you stole it. it does not really belong to you. this is what in essence we are up against. the idea -- it is sort of a moral attack on capitalism. you can't just answer it by saying that capitalism is efficient. filmwe do in the "america" is we take this progressive argument head on. we take as old by the horns, we make the moral case for america, and we make the moral case for the free market system in a fresh way that you have not seen before. when i think about the american era -- we have been hearing that for six years about change. for progressives, change is another word for progress. i think as conservatives and libertarians we know that there can be good change and there can be bad change. when you hear change, you always to ask change from whose
point of view. i am sure if termites could talk, they would call what they do progress. riskedwashington everything for a country that had not even come into being. have america. what are we going to do to keep her? at theber reading constitution in philadelphia and the federalist papers, alexander hammerson says -- alexander hamilton says this is a country that is unique because it is based on reflection and choice. for us as americans, decline is a choice, but so is liberty. so let us resolve right here, right now that liberty is our choice. thank you very much. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> ♪ we are halfway there
oh! living on a prayer take my hand we will make it i swear ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome a big dog music sponsor recording artist. >> ♪ we have got to hold on ready or not you live for the fight when that is all that you've got ♪ >> hi, everybody. my name is ben. i flew all the way from salem, oregon to be here. all right, that is the best reception that salem, oregon has gotten in the history of ever. thank you. -- i aminger songwriter
a singer-songwriter and essentially what i do with my music, i am through big dog music radio, who you should check out. they have a booth in the house. they say the messages that people in music are afraid to say. with that, i will start with my first song. it is called "what do you know about me?" what do you know about broadcasting what do you think about, what do you care about have you found out that i have heard about oh, the veil is torn
it is torn -- we are privileged peace and war -- the real enemy is they are on preserving we turned on every lamp >> a short musical break your before the next speaker at cpac. we will be live again in a couple of minutes and we appreciate your reaction through search so media -- through social media. behalf #pan chat using -- the #c-spanchat, and go to facebook.com/c-span. santorum, current kentucky senator rand paul also, and we will have live coverage this afternoon. while this rate continues, remarks from texas governor rick perry. he spoke earlier at the cpac.
>> come on, get it up. good morning. yes, it is a good morning in america. and the best part about it is that we are getting to be in the present and stand in the presence of american patriots. ofm reminded this morning words that speak to the american soul, words spoken by thomas a little who said rebellion now and then is a good thing. [cheers and applause] my friends, our country is in peril. our deficit is that a record -- thisour economy economic recovery is absolutely stagnant. our lays in the world is weakened. the world isin
weakened. so i have a simple solution. it is time for a little rebellion on the battlefield of ideas. [cheers and applause] but instead of looking to washington to find the front lines of the battle, i ask you to look to the states. we find that the laboratories of innovation and 50 different experience -- experiment in democracy taking place. now, among the states, we see two visions for america. is the vision, and in blue states, where the state plays an increasing role in the lives of its citizens, and in the states, taxes are on the rise, pensions are out of control, and jobs are leaving by the truckloads. and then there is the vision, and to american, red america. if you well.
red state america vision for the freedom of the individual comes first. the breach of government is limited. in these states, taxes are low. is under control. jobs are on the rise and opportunity is being sought far and wide. opportunity in states led by governors like nikki haley, bobby jindal, scott walker, rick scott. for instance, under governor haley, south carolina moved to 20,000 citizens from welfare to work. under bobby jindal, louisiana has become more competitive for jobs by implementing smart regulations, and other scott walker, red state principles have been brought to wisconsin. you see, the public union anders -- they balked,
they instigated this massive disruption of government, but because scott walker -- he had the courage to reform pension programs fairly, the people of wisconsin did not recall him, they stood behind him and they reelected him. [cheers and applause] and under rick scott, florida's unemployment rate has dropped for three straight years. when just four years ago, four years ago, his predecessor presided over the loss of more than 800,000 jobs, and now that guy wants his job back. with a record like that, appropriately, he is running this time to seek it as a democrat. [applause] ask yourselfot to -- what is the common denominator in these states?
it is conservative governments who cut taxes, who controlled spending, who invest in jobs will stop it is conservative governors who trust the people more than the machinery of government. whos conservative governors know the freedom of the individual must come before the power of the state. [cheers and applause] the contrast with blue states is crystal clear. pick any two. heck, let's pick the two biggest. new york and california. [laughter] from the east coast to the west coast, no two states have lots more personal income to other states than new york and california. if you rent a u-haul to move your company, it cost twice as much to go from san francisco to austin than the other way around because you cannot find enough
trucks to flee the golden state. [laughter] [applause] got thisew york have new advertising campaign, the " new york, but they are implementing the tired old recipe of back raking taxes, and yeah, you guessed it, regulation that are larger than a 30-ounce big gulp. [laughter] now, let's pick a large red state. shoot, let's pick texas. [cheers and applause] we cut taxes, we did not spend all the money, we created fair and protectable regulations, and we stopped personal injury trial law years from filing frivolous lawsuits. [cheers and applause] we have created almost 30% of the nation's jobs while keeping taxes among the nation's lowest. we have presided over not only
an energy boom but the nation's largest population boom and an economic boom of monumental proportion. we have demonstrated that no state can tax and spend its way but withrity, the right policies, you can grow your way there. blue state debate -- this debate really matters because it is about the future of america. ,n the vision that wins out either this big government protectionist nanny state version offered by liberal leaders or the limited freedomnt unsubsidized state offered by conservative leaders will determine the future of our nation. [cheers and applause] america cannot sustain its current fiscal course. we cannot continue to borrow
trillions of dollars from bankers in beijing and brazil and tokyo. and the downgrading of our credit -- for the first time two years ago, it should not have surprised anyone. our leaders were fighting over a few billion dollars in spending soaredile our debt has by trillions in the last five years. how can the greatest nation on earth continue to spend its way to astounding debt without the bill ever coming due? hack away split federal and state budgets with on reformed entitlement programs without the ue?ll ever coming d how can we in pa syrian tyrant and embolden his russian allies without the bill ever coming due?
there is a price to be paid for policies that distort our ouromy and embolden enemies. and i am here today to say we don't have to accept recent history -- we just need to change the presidency. [cheers and applause] it is not too late for america to lead the world, but it starts by leaving a home, and it starts by returning to the founding principles of democracy found in our constitution. among the enumerated powers of congress are the power to lay and collect taxes, to pay debts and provide for the common defense, to regulate commerce with foreign nations, to declare
armies raise and support , butprovide and maintain nowhere does the constitution say we should federalize classrooms. [cheers and applause] nowhere! thank you. thank you so much. this is a huge honor to share my story as a young conservative and get to talk to you today. being from minnesota, i am so excited to be in the beautiful d.c. not only to be with his great gathering of conservatives but if you have not heard, we had a rough winter in minnesota. we have had 46 days of below zero temperatures. it is frozen there. literally everything is frozen, not just healthcare.gov. [laughter] again, my name is tara mack, and
i am currently serving in my third term in the minnesota house of representatives. i have the incredible honor of getting to represent the community in which i was raised, apple valley. [applause] i grew up in a very loving and conservative home where political conversation was a regular occurrence, but i never thought that i would run for political office, much less have the chance to stand on a stage like this today. -- i was always insured intrigued by public policy making, how does the government influence the individual. while pursuing a degree at the university of minnesota in political science and global studies, i found that my conservative convictions were being challenged everyday and questioned at every turn. i will never forget one day i had a political science professor in one of his lecture say something i will never forget. what he said underlines pretty much what the liberal message is today and it was a pivotal moment for me. he said -- without government,
the individual can do nothing. i was shocked by what i heard then and i could not disagree more with what he said now. i believe that it is exactly the opposite of what he said. it is and always needs to be about the individual, not the government. [applause] in that moment, while my professor was attempting to indoctrinate a classroom full of young minds, what he actually did was start a fire in me that wanted a different america than the one he was describing, a country that puts the individual first. a few short years after graduation in 2008, i was approached to run for office against a very liberal incumbent in my home community. initially, i rolled myself out ,imply because i was too young but i decided to put myself out there, step up, and see if i could make a difference.
now, some of you are probably as young if not younger than i was age, but i did not let my rolled me out -- rule me out. walking tirelessly, door-to-door, after my neighbors to give me the opportunity to represent them in the minnesota legislature. as you know, 2008 was not exactly a great year for republican, and i think many of us would like to forget that election and its implications altogether. but i believe that i beat the odds not because i am anything ibdial but i believe odds in the 2008 election because of a few promises that i made to myself. i promised myself that i would stay positive and optimistic with my message. i promised myself that i would not be disrespectful of those who disagree with me, including my opponent. i promised myself that i would fight to stay humble while confident in my convictions and beliefs.
and i promised myself that i would show people that i was a conservative who truly cared about the individual, even if that meant that i have to close my mouth and just listen. why is it that liberals are the ones that have become known for their compassion and that we as conservatives have become known as only caring about ourselves? somehow, the left has successfully convinced american voters that democrats care for people and republicans only care about the bottom line. too often we hear that compassion and fiscal responsibility are mutually exclusive. they are not. but i do believe that we as conservatives have to tell a better story. a story that shows people we care about the individual no matter what their circumstance is. we need to show them that fiscal responsibility and compassion are not mutually exclusive. us, young and of
old -- need to tell a better story. a story that shows that we care about people. we need to show them what compassionate conservatives look like and live like. let me give you an example. i sit on the health and human services committee and the minnesota house. as a result of obamacare, we have a state run health insurance exchange. as the lead republican on this committee, i have worked the better half of the past year trying to make sure that we have lower cost, increase choice, and protect the privacy of every minnesotan. unfortunately, at this point in minnesota, the house, senate, and the governor are all controlled by the democrats. as a result, more than $150 million has been spent on a dysfunctional and extremely frozen website. in addition, over 280,000 in a soda -- minnesotans have been kicked off of insurance that
they like and many have had their private information compromised as a result of a major data breach. those are not just numbers. they are individuals. i heard from one mother whose daughter has over there in cancer who was released from her current insurance because of obamacare. this is just one of their stories. it is unacceptable. their story is neither compassionate nor fiscally responsible. the implications of decisions being made in ec, in minnesota -- in d.c., in minnesota, and across this country will have profound impact and we as conservatives face great challenges. i know my professor had it wrong that day. it is about individuals like you and me. we aseve that if conservatives stay optimistic, if we stay respectful of those who disagree with us, remain humble while confident in our
beliefs and our convictions, if we can become better examples of what it looks like to be compassionate conservatives, we will together tell a better story and inspire many, both young and old, to join us. we need individuals like you to step up. don't wait to be asked. please do not wait to be old enough. thank you so much. god bless. [cheers and applause] >> i was elected when i was 24 years old and it was my dad who actually encourage me to become part of the political process. dad,ears later i said hey, join me, we will run together as a team. i now call a bring your dad to work day every day. i hear a lot about women's issues, i support a lot of pro- life legislation, help victims of sex trafficking, and we are able to do that both personally
and legislatively. being a young person and a female in a state legislature, i think that adds a completely different perspective than a 55 male,ail -- 55-year-old even the way they communicate with constituents. i think it is something that people appreciate. >> ladies and gentlemen, please the honorable jenna tagger, south dakota state representative and 10 under 40 on a reef. >> ♪ i am waking up to ash and dust i wipe my brow and i sweat my rest i am breathing in the chemicals ♪ hello, -- >> hello. the american dream is about the ability to achieve your god- given potential, to do more, to
create more, to be more than the generation before. we wantthe free america for our children. but the big government, progressive policies that promote handouts, welfare, and not so free health care as a luxury you are entitled to an set of the safety net has made generations of americans dependent on the government. virtuous,s founded by self reliance people. we even joke and south dakota, you have to be a strong woman to survive the winter, and with a winter like this, i might have to become wonder woman to survive. the people who drove covered widens across the various -- the prairies and badlands to settle my state had to work to survive. there was no government to provide for them. instead, community, church, and charity us at the them -- assisted them in times of need.
thomas jefferson warned that dependence suffocates virtue, made people tools of an oppressor's ambition. now we have proven president jefferson right as we live under the imperial president whose highness, barack hussein obama -- [applause] to liveus feel blessed in the freest country in history , and even though we are still writing the story of america, it is not a fairy with a guaranteed happy ending. if our political kingdom destined to become some cruel and corrupt house of cards? murdered 55 million babies. we are leaving the next generation $17 trillion in debt with blatant disregard for their future and livelihood. is this the freedom our founding fathers envisioned? the good news is that it is not too late. whether you are aware of it or not, you are here because you
are called to the greater purpose. you want your life to count. you have a value far greater than what the culture would have you believe. we still have the freedom with internal significance, freedom to choose what we believe. what you believe determines the direction of your life and ultimately your destiny. every one of us has the power to reject the poisoned apple in this fairytale and denied the fleeting pleasure of false promises. regardless of gender, education, or state of life, you have something unique to contribute with the skills, relationships, and opportunity. has given you. your calling is already in front of you. you don't have to wait. when i was first elected at the age of 24. homeschoolgle college graduate without a college degree or a lot of money, but perhaps that was why i was given the opportunity because i was not the model
politician. i campaigned with a simple goal -- i care about you, and i want possiblyour story and serve your needs. i knew that regardless of election victory, the mission was worthwhile. so what are you being called to right now? perhaps you have not discovered the part you want to play, the how and where of your involvement. as you discuss political strategy, listen to speakers, or simply engage in your local community, you will eventually discover something that will speak to the core of who you are. a strong reaction in your soul is usually a good indicator of the battle you will engage. when i consider abortion or sex trafficking in our day, i am cut to the heart. it was the desire of justice and mercy that many get involved as a young person and what eventually led me to run to office. since i was elected four years
ago, i have brought legislation defending life and to prevent human trafficking. being affected at a soul level is all that is needed to energize and begin your calling. we may have reasons to feel inadequate, and when i looked at myself, there were many, but when i redirected my focus to a hopeful vision of love toward my community, suddenly my inadequacies did not matter. andmissions of justice mercy are so much greater than us. as we align ourselves with the significance,rnal success is guaranteed because good always triumphs over evil. womenire is to help young recognize their value, pursue their dreams now, and reclaim feminism. women across cultures have saved the lives of many people and even nations. not by competing with men but because they dared to pursue what is good and true in our world. we need more women like that. i started a political action
committee called rushmorewomen.com. our mission is to recruit local candidates who know the true definition of feminism. instead of protecting a deadly choice, we protect and value every individual life. instead of demanding equality, we pursue goals and dreams based on our unique gifts and skills. and instead of waiting for the future, we seize the opportunities that are before us. so while all of us here worked diligently on political strategies, we must remember that we have a greater calling that goes beyond political victory. ancess is not determined by election day or a political party but by alignment with the eternal principles. personal passion. seize opportunity right in front of you, and watch your calling unfold. thank you. [applause] ♪
gentlemen, please welcome eric. >> wow. please sit. [laughter] , please, benk you seated, thank you. afternoon, cpac. i am thrilled to be here again. speech.ddling with the did putin invade any peninsulas recently? is florida still hours? -- ours? since i'm not being paid for this speech, i thought i could ask you to follow me on twitter, is that ok?
i can ask. you can find it on my website, ericmetaxas.com. i will not mention that during the course of my speech, but before i begin, thank you. let me start with a downer. we might be too pumped up here to think that, portable, hillary clinton could be a google -- could be elected in two years, but i am here to tell you that and some of the ideas that have not been so wonderful to this country could continue. first of all, let me say we need to get serious. we need to be really careful about not attacking those on our have some false sense of purity unless it is absolutely necessary -- [applause] but on a larger scale, i want to knowing what we believe, understanding what we
believe, just as governor chris christie said yesterday, we have to tell people not just what we are against but what we are for. what we are for. for example, we have to get the message out on the gop side that we are against people suffering in poverty. we have to get that message out. why we oppose democratic policies. did you know that nearly 50 million americans are on food stamps? 50 million. that is a national humiliation. we have to let people know that we think the good jobs are food stamps. that is what we believe. we are for that. [applause] it is notarger scale, just about policies, it is about -- what do we think america is? what do we say that america is? what do we say the conservative values are better for america or truer to america?
why do we say that? have we forgotten about that? have we gotten mired in legislation and policies? i sometimes think that our side is very bad at getting out the larger narratives and we would do well to get serious about that. so i want to ask you -- do you remember the story of america? we need to know that story ourselves and get that story out in every election cycle. who are we? the pilgrims as real human beings who suffered -- first ofhorribly all, they suffer tremendous religious persecution. we think of them as art and characters, we eat turkey, we watch football. that is what it means to be an american. god forbid. they suffered religious persecution, they rest life and limb, and many of them lost their lives to come to these hostile shores.
they lost their children, their spouses -- do we remember that narrative? that that israel and that those people paid that price so that we can watch football and have what we have. have we forgotten that? resoluteember that the -- the revolution was a real thing. it is not a cartoon thing. that real men bled and died for that thing called liberty. you know, there was a time when every american schoolchild remit -- memorized longfellow's: "paul revere's ride." have you read that recently? read that aloud. americans used to know the stories of our rightness, of our sacrifices. if we do not know the stories in our bones and teach those stories, we really have nothing to sell. have we forgotten that over the years we believed god actually had his hands on this country? that the way george washington crossed the east river in august
of 1776 was nothing less than a miracle, as everyone who was there acknowledged. [applause] it should have ended there. liberty should have been strangled in the cradle that day, but somehow, it seems, that god intervened, if you believe in god -- and i do. now, why would god do a miracle for one country over another? the the bible says god is no respect or of persons. we are all created a poll. does he favor one nation over another? the short answer is no, he does not. the only blesses people or nation so that they can turn be a blessing. understand that, we understand nothing of what it is to the united states of america. [applause] time, in the years and the decades, we were ascending to greatness -- that is the story we told ourselves. that we were uniquely chosen by
god. abraham lincoln called us the almost-chosen people, but this was not a look at me manifest destiny kind of pride. on the contrary. it was not trash talk to be gods almost-chosen people. it was a burden, a noble burden that came with duties which we must fulfill. lincoln understood we were chosen by god to represent god and god's purposes in history. lincoln was buried clear on that, very explicit about it. he did not shy away from that faith-based language. in 1862 message to congress, he called it the last best hope of earth. does anyone think lincoln was a saber-rattling buffoon? he was not. he knows that god almighty had blessed us from sea to shining sea so that we could be a blessing to those between vcs the -- the seas and beyond be seas.
that is the reason god blesses and the only reason he blessed america. we need to remember that. the early abolitionists stood against the zeitgeist, which i recommend always standing grace,, and by god's slavery was abolished. have you heard recently that part of the narrative? that it was people of faith, crazy evangelicals that that we are all created equal -- have you heard that recently? we need to know that by motivated by faith in god, the civil rights leaders did what they did to for build the larger promise of america. did you know that rosa parks was a serious question? that jackie robinson was a serious question. have you heard that recently? int god had a hand fulfilling who we are, and making us great. this country was wealthy and made wealthy so that we could be , and it was we gave
and is a privilege to get, and whatever we give away, god replaced so we can keep giving it away, so giving away is an act itself a trust itself and in god we did trust and he blessed us. jesus, who was the favorite philosopher of george w. bush, thank you, you have been a great audience, good night. [laughter] said for unto whomsoever much is given of him much shall be required. and to that, we as a nation said "amen." now, we did not just give money. we give ourselves. we gave up our great young men to fight against out of hitler -- adolf hitler. ourselvesand that we might be in the depths of the third reich so as we were able, we did what we could to defeat them and god blessed us for doing so. and here is something else we give to the world -- we give hope. we were speaking of truth and
hope. a beacon of hope in a dark world of hopelessness and lies. we are here, by god's grace, we will do everything we can to free you. my parents came to this country from europe in the 1950's, my dad from greece, which was torn apart by world war ii and civil war from the communists, and my mother from germany, half of she lived had been taken over by communism. they knew what was to suffer, to be hungry, to have no hope. they knew the great hope for them was in the united states of america, and with nothing, they came here, they met in an english class in new york city. they marry, they had children who had every opportunity they never do to grow to go to good colleges and live the american dream. but by the time i got to one of those good colleges, i would never mention it by name, but it is yell university, -- yale university, by the time i got there in the early 1980's, a narrative was being put forth,
which i heard, but i never took in. a narrative that said america's strength was a bad thing, that instead of using it to help others, we used it to bully others, and the answer was to be less strong. our boys was to be aremember a friend sister did semester in the soviet union in 1983. that was the thing to do. we stupidly put up propaganda posters in our dorm rooms. a friends father came and saw poster of lenin i had put up. he came to me and said eric, i want to ask you a favor. i want you to take that poster down. suddenly, it was as if scales had fallen from my eyes. i was ashamed. i had betrayed my mother and my
father, who had lived under communism. i had betrayed my country and my values. of course, i took the poster down, but i think of that with shame to this day. i want you to understand how easy it is for people to fall into that way of thinking. it has become the default narrative in this culture. it is the narrative of hollywood and academia. unless we get the troops out, the real story of america, the great narrative -- the truth out, the real story of america, the great narrative, we don't stand a chance. america, for all its faults, and there are many, is still the greatest country in the history of the world. [laughter] [applause] america is great, not because our people are better than other people, because we are not. america is great because we know that everything we have is a gift from god that we don't
deserve and that god has given it to us for the sake of others. [applause] so, when our president says something like you didn't build that, understand that in that wrongheaded statement, there is nonetheless a kernel of truth. we need to be confident enough to acknowledge that kernel of truth. because of course, the crucial difference between the whole truth and the kernel of truth is not that the government helped us build whatever we build, but others. the founders, the people who died for our liberty. god who gave us this country and these opportunities. here is not a gift from our government, but a gift from god. are we humble enough to acknowledge that. are we humble enough to acknowledge that even the hard eventou do, you did not -- invent it. that is what american exceptionalism is.
we need to get that story out there. it is not chest beating american exceptionalism. most americans don't know what those ideas are. it is our job to let them know, to remind ourselves. you realize that because you know some of these things, you have the burden and responsibility to share them with those who do not know it. there are people on the fence, you know, who have never heard these things. you are responsible to share it and to share it with humility and love. i too am against jingoistic american exceptionalism. if we don't know the difference, and that it -- if we don't know the difference, let us never use that phrase again. if we believe in nothing but ourselves, and god help us. it was lincoln who said we should not pray that god is on our side but that we are on
god's side. that is humility. i am a christian and i say i share the good news because i know i did not invent the good news. i did not earn the good news. i did not get the good news because i am smart or wise. it was a gift given to me so i could share it with others humbly and lovingly. america'st speak of love, let me not speak of it at all. if you do not believe in god, that's ok. freedomwhat religious is all about. the government cannot tell us what to believe. they can't tell us what god to believe in or to believe in god. they can't tell us what church to go to war to go to church. -- they can't tell us
what church to go to or to go to church. they can't tell us not to practice our religion. big to fail. too no idea is too big to fail. they stand on their own or let them fail. the idea ofecause same-sex marriage, this idea of paying for contraceptives, we should let the voters decide. we are supposed to let the voters make those decisions and let the voters decide. if ideas can't stand on their own, let them fall. the government must stay out of the free market of ideas and beliefs. we must not tell people what to do. all theld begin to undo
freedoms for every american. america has been great because america is good. when we cease to be good, we will cease to be great. i just came up with that. finally, what we mean by that is that yes, we want to be wealthy and we want america to be wealthy so that we can be generous. so that we can give hope to those with no jobs. so that we can give jobs to those with no jobs. we are blessed and we want to be blessed so that we can be a blessing. we want to be militarily strong so that we can help those who cannot help themselves stand against oppression. this does not mean fighting more wars, but being willing to do so if necessary and letting the world know we are willing to do so, if necessary. others doing good for when it is not immediately in
our self interest is in our self-interest. it is what has made us great and what will continue to make us great, not just for us, but for the whole world of which we are apart. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the senior legal fellow at the heritage foundation. >> hello. welcome to see pack 2014. c-pac 2014.
april 15 is rapidly approaching. the day that all americans don't like and fear, so we are here to targeting ofe irs conservative organizations, why that happened, how it happened, and what is going on today with it. this effort is supported by many politicians in washington. recently, chuck schumer gave a speech in which he said he wants the irs to redouble its efforts to go after conservative organizations. november, the irs , andut new regulations those regulations, i can tell you, are one of the worst attempts at censorship since the
this and sedition act when country first started. at the end of last week, there were over 140 thousand comments to the irs, more than they have ever received, overwhelmingly against it. here to talk about this today, startinghree experts, with cleat to mitchell. she is an expert on campaign finance law, election and lobbying law, and she represents many organizations targeted by the irs. she has testified numerous times in front of congress. if you have not seen it, you should pull that up. this is the woman i would want in the foxhole with me defending me against the incoming
artillery rounds. next we have eliana johnson, who is a political reporter at national review where i am also a contributor. she writes about congress, the administration and the media. she has covered the irs scandal extensively since it broke. she was the first to report that this was orchestrated out of washington, rather than , as both the agency and the obama administration initially claimed. finally, we have christine o'donnell. you all know that she was a republican nominee in the 2010 special election to fill the delaware u.s. senate seat once held by joe biden, and she became one of the most talked about political candidates in 2010.
we are going to try to do this as a conversation so we can discuss the really important issues that occur -- that occurred in this situation. the first question i have for you is how do you think this started and why? >> well, it started because in 2009, the tea party movement really, in reaction to the deficit and the stimulus passed byat was democrats. there were no republican votes for that. as you remember, people were outraged at this incredible debt that congress had just approved. fast forward, immediately following, we have the new president, then new president,
obama, introducing this health care bill. , this enraged and infuriated and concerned citizens all over the country, and they began to become active and have meetings and talk about, you know, we have to get informed. we have to get involved. all the things we tell you every year here. you have to get informed. you have to get involved. people did that who had never been politically involved before. they begin to do that in large numbers in 2009. then we had the citizens united decision in january, 20 10. now, we really as conservatives all applauded that because we believe in freedom and freedom of speech and we have worked on campaign finance issues for many years. but that supreme court decision absolutely traumatize the left and continues to do so to this day. because all of a sudden now,
here is what this meant in real life. now citizens organizing these grassroots groups, not only could they talk about issues, now they could connect the dots and say this congressman voted for obama care. voted for thean stimulus package. we need to get rid of this guy. that's what they hate. that's what the left is so worried about. begin to happen in late 2009, early 2010, is that the irs suddenly says -- and you have the president of the united states, max baucus, the chairman senate finance committee and eight other united states senators who all start pounding irs,e united -- on the
demanding that the irs do something. and that is where it started. those smoking guns are all right there. scandal began in washington. in washington. which i will be happy to talk about later, but it was out of fury that these leftists who are running and ruining our country began getting so worried that citizens would be able to talk at election time about the people who were in charge of obamacare and the stimulus package, so they turned their attention and their sights on trying to stop the citizen organizations and to silence their ability to talk about how people in congress had been voting. >> to you think the press in
general has ignored this story echo have they given it the attention it should be getting? congress were in very lucky, initially when this story broke. there were -- there was tremendous interest in it because there was a trifecta of stories that hit the administration. the irs was one of them. the administration monitoring the ap was another. that theedia realizing administration had not been totally straight with them on the benghazi scandal was another one. these three stories hit at the same time and there was huge coverage of the irs and the other two stories. it was a tough time for the administration. but it is very difficult to keep the story on the front pages or even on the back pages over the course of several months. and you have seen it received -- recede from the headlines.
inon't think republicans congress have done a tremendous job painting a picture of what happened here and telling a story that is easy for people to follow, and i think that is one of the reasons. it is obviously hard to keep people's interest, and you are dealing with a complicated and admittedly boring matter, which is the intricacies of the internal revenue service when it comes to how some of this works. also, there was a lot of obscene -- a lot of obfuscation the came from democrats. did barack obama pick up the phone and call lois lerner and tell them to hold up the application from the tea party group? then there was no scandal. the ranking member of the house oversight committee said republicans have tried to use this against the administration and the white house, and i don't
think republicans have been solid in responding and saying regardless of if the white house ordered this, if we have partisan bureaucrats doing this kind of thing, that in itself is a problem that warrants coverage. >> i have heard people say that the white house did not need to pick up the telephone because the president has a megaphone. he was clearly in speech after speech condemning these grassroots organizations, saying they were getting dark money and that they needed to be investigated. of thene, you were one people whose tax records were illegally accessed. one of the issues that has come up recently is a lot of questioning of whether or not the justice department is -- isly conduct a actually conducting a serious investigation because there have been leaks from inside saying no
criminal violations will be charged, leaks which are themselves unethical. been your experience with the government in trying to investigate what happened to you? >> i think there is a stone wall that's part of why this irs scandal began in the first place. this administration has an arrogance of thinking they are untouchable. and they can use the irs and the political weapons without any weapon -- as a political without any kind of consequences. that is why it's so important that not as conservatives, but people all across america and across the aisle stand up against this. what happened in my case was that about a year ago, a federal investigator came to me in delaware. we met in person. he told me that on the day i
announced my u.s. senate campaign, my irs records had been inappropriately accessed by a gentleman named david smith who worked at the delaware department of revenue. a couple hours later, there was an erroneous tax lien filed a tax lien against the property i no longer owned. the irs said it was a computer glitch and in error, but the damage had been done already. tax lien had been widely circulated in the media and had been something that had become attached to my name and my reputation. so i am very grateful that this is being investigated by the u.s. senate and the ways and means committee. question, the fact that the justice department has acknowledged criminal wrongdoing
prosecute should enrage everybody, because if it happened to me, that means everyone in this room could be a target unless we stop it now. they are using the irs to intimidate people. off of the battlefield. to shame you into inactivity so agendaey can run their however they want, unopposed. we have to stand up against it. , if thee speak up public outrage is loud enough, we can back eric holder into a corner to the point where he is forced to do something. unfortunately, in my situation, i was told that a lot of the investigators hands are tied because of something called rule
610 three, which says that government workers have access but cannotrmation reveal it. that was supposed to prevent what happened to me, but it is being, i believe, misapplied and has protected the person who accessed my tax records. >> one of the things that happened not just in christine's case but at least for conservative organizations had their confidential donor schedule released publicly. no liberald of groups whose donors have been publicly released, but i know of at least for conservative organizations whose donor groups have been publicly released. section 61 of three of the tax code says it is a felony for the irs to release confidential tax .nformation
ane the irs conducts investigation of the wrongdoing and may identify the individual irs employee responsible for the wrongdoing, not only do they turn it on its head and say it protects the wrongdoer, they will not even tell you -- they won't tell christine, they won't tell the national organization for marriage, who it was that was responsible for releasing their confidential tax information because they say that is confidential taxpayer information, so we can't tell you. it completely twists the purpose of section 610 three. -- idealing with the irs began to realize in 2009 that there was something going on, because normally it would take about three to four weeks to get a 501(c) four application
processed. i filed one for an organization in october of 2009. they cash her check within 30 days and we never heard another 2010, and june of guess who we heard from? we heard from washington. we did not hear from cincinnati. another year passed. i talked to the irs in cincinnati about another two applications for clients who had been waiting for more than a year, and the agency in cincinnati told me, basically, lady there ain't anything i can do because we are waiting for instructions from washington. that is what i was told in the fall of 2011. the first conversation i ever had with eliana was about that and about the whole business of these rogue agents or boneheads in some remote office was a complete and total lie. quick supposedly the justice department is conducting a criminal investigation, but
several committees in the house and senate have been investigating including house -- including the committee on oversight reform in the ways and means committee. do you think a special committee should have been appointed to investigate this, and the committees that have been appointed, do you think they have been doing everything they should have been doing to find out what happened here? >> i think because of rule 6103 their hands are tied a lot. i had a meeting on the hill today and i did find out they introduced legislation to change rule 6103. course, we hope they will write it into the bill that it is retroactive than i can be told. there is more they can do. i would like to see david smith under oath and ask him why did you look into her records? i would like to see his boss put
under oath. i think the more we are engaged, the more we are talking about this, the more congress can do something. but the bad news of what i learn in my meeting this morning is do so much.n only eventually, it has to become a criminal court -- a criminal investigation. that is why we are starting the offense fund. we plan to go on the offensive with them. we need your help. we plan to go on the offensive and higher our own team of private investigators who are not bound by certain scopes of what they're supposed to do and what they are not supposed to do. and we're going to make sure this does not happen again, because this throws a stake ourt into the heart of
freedom. and everything we are fighting , citizens speaking up because they are frustrated with our country, of then what is the point of doing all of this? and i thank everyone for their support and encouragement in doing all of that. >> anything you want to add? tough to tell at times heavy investigations are going, but they certainly are proceeding. drag loisw them lerner back in front of the committee and her go to the fifth amendment once again. he revealed contents of e-mails you the ain't that the committee he previously -- of e-mails had obtained that the committee had previously not revealed.
whati just underscore eliana just said. this investigation began last may. march, and today the irs has finally said, today, that they will release all of lois lerner's e-mails. does someone want to tell me how it is possible that the just out-of-control angry at the stonewalling that has been going on? it is breathtaking. she is at the epicenter of this , and today they say ok, we will turn over her e-mails. >> it is hard to say have thorough the investigations have been because we don't have the contents. they continue to question lerner even though she was not
providing answers. she wrote an e-mail in february of 2011 that said he party matter very dangerous. this could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether applies to tax rules. she was the person to announce that the irs had been inappropriately targeting groups and said it was rogue agents in cincinnati. the president initially said everybody should be angry about this but there is no corruption here, not a smidge of corruption. i don't know if a special committee is necessary. it seems that the committees are doing a good job, but what needs to be improved is, i think, the communication. people need to be told a story. did it start and how did it
end? >> well, it hasn't ended. let me tell you what they did. after thanksgiving, they announced proposed regulation that emma if adopted, by the way, would mean that in even pack --f years, see cpac would have no candidates for office because the rules would say that the cost of putting on an event where a candidate for office speaks orhin 30 days of a primary general election would have to be counted against the primary purpose of the organization hosting the event. the is just one example of regulations that they issued the day after thanksgiving. .nd we did organize
i was so angry when i saw this. no way tothere was organize people until after the first of the year. a number of people worked very hard to generate this 460 west plusand and -- 400 60 thousand comments opposing the regulation. guess what they did this week? i am reading my exempt organizations update that comes to my computer once a month or from thece a month irs. 455 p.m. on tuesday, the irs , nok into a newsletter announcement, no pr release, that from now on, all s for c4 status will have to answer -- if they appear to be engaged in lobbying or any kind of advocacy -- will have to
answer all the questions the tea party groups were subjected to for the past several years. it is a very lengthy set of questions. as thehe same subject tea party questionnaires. it is the same subject as the regulation. they did that this week. yesterday, we-- learned that lois lerner had given an interview to the department of justice criminal investigators within the last six months, but she still won't speak to the american people and to their elected representatives. and we have the president of the united states calling this phony , and the irs doesn't announce until today they are going to turn over the e-mails. i think christine is right. going to have to take matters into our own hands, set up private investigations and rewards for whistleblowers. i got in e-mail just a few moments ago from a retired irs employee who told me that he
worked in an exempt organization to his responsibility was get those applications processed and out the doors in 30 days, which was my experience until the end of 2009. >> one of the other important reasons we have to take matters into our own hands is we have to isp in mind that the irs soon going to have access to our medical records, thanks to obamacare. in my case, i was not treated differently like the tea party groups were. into my actually went records. and then this erroneous he turned into a tax lien against me. if this government employee can get away with this without any consequences, without even getting fired, which i actually think there should be jail time, then imagine what is going to
happen when people step up to run for office and these same government employees have access to your medical records. imagine what is going to happen if you write a letter to the editors speaking out against a politician. what is going to be exposed about your medical records or your tax records? when a government employee has access , ithas that kind of power should not be abused without serious consequences, and that is up to you guys. >> amigo back to something -- let me go back to something you mentioned about the irs and these very intrusive questions they were asking of tea party organizations. many have said to me that they think that in addition to trying to kill political speech in these organizations, that the real intent of both the target
newthe new organizations -- regulations, is because they want to identify the donors of these organizations and go after them. do you think that is part of what is going on here? >> i absolutely think -- and we have talked about this at some length. you're trying to figure out how to get our arms around it. i have traveled the country a lot in the past year speaking about the irs scandal and everywhere i go people say i had never been audited ever until i gave money to a conservative group and then i was audited. i actually believe that what the irs has been doing -- and i said this the other day because i actually did meet with the justice department a week ago i have beense haranguing about the fact that they never called me. so they finally called me. i saw my testimony castigating fordepartment of justice
their sham investigation is theynced in the fact that contacted me within three hours. i raise the point about the audits. i think the irs has been using publicly filed campaign-finance donor reports that are required that candidates have to file, and i think they have been using schedule b donor information for who is giving to conservative donor -- conservative organizations. the 990 people, whatever that division is, to the audit division, i think there has been a concerted effort to target an audit conservative donors. i said that in an interview i , i said thato something you need to investigate.
and the inspector general for treasury said if you have any information on that we would like the it. i looked at him and said you are the one who has access to all the information, not me. i am waiting for you and the three fbi agents in the justice department to investigate this. you are looking to me to do your job? i think that is a huge part of this gaggle. -- of this scandal. e-mail from lois lerner referring to the wealthy coke. that is where it all started. >> everything you see from the democrats on the koch brothers is really a template for this. do not like donor anonymity. they don't like dark money. they want these people to be named. 501(c) fours to not have to publicly name their donors. you see with chuck schumer and
several democratic senators from al franken to max baucus whole number of them call on the irs to change 501(c) four regulations, and that is what the agency itself has proposed. a number of these groups would have to start naming their donors if they were shifted out of 501(c) four status. it would result in a lot more people being treated the way the koch brothers are, which, the people associated with them now or associated with other groups really don't want because they see what is happened to them in terms of the notoriety they have of their a result political donations. >> let me just clarify one thing. like ourals don't undisclosed donors. they have plenty of undisclosed donors on their side. say, even the donors who are known, like you see who have been in the news a lot,
they are treated differently by the media. they get more free me press. the environmental donor who is a billionaire got a friendly profile in the new yorker and the new york times. and the koch brothers come in for a different sort of treatment, which is what scares conservative donors off. i don't think liberal donors have to fear that same sort of thing. all of thise castigating of conservative groups for not disclosing their donors but we do not have the disclosure of donors to liberal groups. >> that is going have to be it. we are out of time. please give them around of applause.
>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the president and chief executive officer of citizen link. >> can we all just get along? we have to and we need to, but first, we have to get to some issues. link is a public policy partner of focus on the family. we are social conservatives and i want to dive right into the deep end. is alieve that marriage one-man, one-woman. marriage today means mom and dad. i realize how difficult that is in some circumstances to hear that, but that's where we are, that's who we are. an entry into our discussion this afternoon. we want to find out what s are all about.
check out the platform of the libertarian party. there is so much to appreciate in that party platform. the battalions have led the way in helping us understand the to cut back wasteful government, to get government out of our lives. in thealso find this party platform. government does not have the to license personal relationship. free tots should be choose their own sexual practices. sometimes it is not only about what adults want. sometimes it is about what children need. liberal -- the libertarian party wants to -- the liberal party wants to get rid of that
government document called the marriage license. about no longer talking the definition of marriage. we are on our way to talking about the abolition of marriage. license helps provide children with a secure, stable, permanent home because it encourages spouses to work it out and parents to work it out with their kids. it means a lot more struggling moms trying to raise kids, and beingget it done forced on the government roles welfare.aid, for when we denigrate that little avernment document called
marriage license, we are going to have kids, many of them teenagers, getting into trouble, and that means more judges, more facilities,ention more court workers, more social workers. this is not a recipe for smaller government. this is a recipe for larger government. we have a whole lot of firepower waiting backstage to set me .traight one by one, i will introduce them and bring them out to begin our conversation. the first is the author of the book "we still hold these truths." he is also executive editor of the heritage foundation guide to
the constitution. these welcome dr. matthew spalding. panelist is the cohost of the independence on the fox business channel and co-author of the book "the declaration of independents." please welcome matt welch. he is the host of talkers political talk10 shows and a best-selling. from the sam radio network, please welcome michael medved. finally, president and founder of students for liberty with now over 1200 local groups. last year he led 40 conferences
on five conferences for 5000 proud graduate a of george washington university. please welcome andrew mccolgan. >> hey, and my alex trebek or what? this is great. if you want to join the , at sea pack news, @cpacnews.-- started with ae false premise that all libertarians are associated with the libertarian party. that is not the case. you can be a libertarian and not be a libertarian party member. the mercury and stew not require people to adopt certain policy -- libertarians do not require
people to adopt certain policy positions. you can be a democrat or an independent. you can be a christian, muslim, atheist or two. what it means is to be committed politicalin philosophy where the principle of liberty is the most important. what is important to keep in mind with this is that there is a difference between a political philosophy and a personal lifestyle. you can be a social conservative and be a libertarian when it comes to public policy, the important difference being what you think the government ought to mandate for individuals. just because you think the government ought to act a certain way doesn't mean that you require them to do that. locks letterohn ,oncerning poverty seriously
people should have the freedom to choose what they're going to do. we see many social conservatives recognizing this, whether it is talking about same-sex marriage or marijuana legalization. marriage, dick cheney, laura bush, jon huntsman, kurt ender, mark kirk and lisa murkowski. when it comes to marijuana, william f buckley, governor rick perry has come out in favor of decriminalization. pat roberts in. dennis eisley, sean hannity, libertariansgrich. and social conservatives can absolutely work together if we realize we are both trying to limit the government when it comes to freedom. >> thank you so much. point,alding, at some tends to get --
at what point do we dissipate to the point where we are no longer we the people. chose the word liberty, rather than the word freedom because they meant freedom appropriate for man. they understood lee pretty -- liberty to be under the laws of nature's god. it didn't mean licenses. it required a certain unity and agreement about certain common precepts of how we govern ourselves. as much freedom as possible. we want to have the freedom to choose. i agree with that. but we must agree first and freeman -- first and foremost on certain precepts. we believe all men are created equal. we believe everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness, which includes the right to property. but also, religious freedom.
that has to be an underlying core for this liberty to exist in the first place. that was the founders idea, and that is what we want to get back to. >> your book seems to militate against that notion of shared values and commonality. your book speaks a lot about living interesting lives as far away from politics as possible. in your book, there is a bit of a rage against the system attitude. how do you respond to what matt spalding has just said? >> i have faith in american culture. there has to be one of us left. on wisconsining public radio in madison, wisconsin, in october, 2008, outt after the park freak and the bipartisan establishment
in washington telling us that in order to be good people we had to support an open-ended bailout of anyone who has made a mistake in the last 20 years. the house of representatives voted against it. on wisconsingo public radio to talk about why bailouts were bad. we took calls for an hour and for an entire hour, madison, wisconsin people were telling me that bailouts are morally wrong. if you take a gamble and you the you should not have government bail you out. ofre is a bedrock notion personal responsibility that we can survive even our entire political class freaking out and totally losing faith. george w. bush on front of the country and set normally i have faith in free markets and capitalism but. we knew we were going to be in for a bad political year. i have to tell you that the
muscle memory of the american experiment will persevere. i think it perseveres better the further away we go from political tribal membership. when you can start thinking for yourself and focusing on individual issues and finding allies where they are on the issues that you care about, putting your arm around them and saying let's go fight here, and then saying ok, we don't have to agree about everything else. i'm ecstatic about it. >> will political conservatives ever ease up on social issues or do we have to wait for our generation to run government? >> it is not a question of easing up on social issues or even arguing about the philosophy of libertarianism versus social conservatism. because right now, we have a common foe. we have a common danger.
the battle of gettysburg, the federal line up on the ridge wasn't arguing between republicans and democrats. and they were both up there. confederates,000 coming up the ridge and you had to deal with it. right now, the forces of big government are on the march. one thing that libertarians have in common is resisting it. the way to resist is to it knowledge the felicity -- acknowledge the validity of conservative goals. let me give you an example, because it is one of those areas where on the social issues conservatives care about most we have had great success using libertarian means. the issue is abortion. one of the things the pro-life movement has achieved without changing the law, without what thegovernment, pro-life movement has achieved is cutting the level of abortion
in the united states to its lowest point in 30 years. how? by preaching and teaching and reaching people and convincing more people -- and this is one of the only social issues in which the support for a position, a pro-life position, which i share emphatically, that support is higher among young people than among codgers like us. that is a very important achievement. it was achieved not by legislative means, not by government support, but by arguments and persuasion. for aarian means conservative goal. let me say one other thing quickly about a conservative issue that purportedly divides us but shouldn't. right now, the key issue regarding marriage is not the definition of marriage anymore. it is now an issue of religious liberty. and i don't believe there is a libertarian in this hall today who believes that well, for
instance, the government has a right or in need to order a group of elderly catholic nuns in colorado to ensure their employees for birth control. that is big government run amok. by the same token, we right now are great believers not only in religious conscience and the rights of religious conscience when it comes to marriage, but a great belief in federalism. may havethat new york recognized or legitimized gay marriage doesn't mean that texas should be compelled by an overreaching court or anyone else to sponsor and legitimize gay marriage. that believe in federalism libertarians and conservatives in passionate agreement.
>> if the marriage issue is no longer a marriage issue, if it is about religious liberty and are thece, where opportunities in terms of supporting our right to be conscientious objectors, so to speak? >> i largely agree with what you just said. the issue here is religious liberty, but the kind of religious liberty that has been infringed upon in recent decades has been the liberty of those religious institutions and practices that support same-sex marriage. the government has prevented them from engaging in the religious practice that they want. >> where? where? there has never been a state in this country that has ever banned gay marriage. that is a liberal lie. consciouss discrimination of the basic
denial of rights of individuals in committed relationships, the only difference being their sexual orientation. of us who uphold the traditional definition of religious liberty issue, you are not with us on that. >> as an issue, i will jump in for alex here, i don't want any baker or any photographer to be told they have to work with someone because they are gay. for crying out loud, people should have the right -- it is not 1964. it is not 1864. to openlyt discriminate against you ever you want in your business life -- and we actually have broad rights of discrimination in this congratulations to us. becauseon't exercise it
morale he is not dictated by the government. it is dictated by each individual and their conscience. punish orarket will reward them as necessary. >> i think this gets back to the precepts under which we govern ourselves, right echo we agree that all men are created equal. what if we don't agree with that? we have to have that in a civilized society. that is the basis of free government and constitution. >> the problem we have with this particular issue is that the question of marriage does cut to the nature of things, which is the grounding for precisely the liberty you want to defend. if you don't recognize the fact that the government needs to protect those who have religious liberty objections to this fundamental question, then you are saying the government has the right to step in and define those things for you and i guarantee you that is what they
are going to do. libertarians right now should be protecting liver -- protecting religious liberty first and foremost. infringing on your liberty if someone in your state, for example, has a marriage that is a gay couple that is recognized by the state? how does that violate your liberty. >> the question is whether the state has an obligation to recognize marriage in the first place, and if so, on what grounds. the interest of the state, constitutionally and historically, is because of children produced by marriage. we can argue about intolerance and we can argue about free lifestyle, but the only reason we're having this debate is because we are concerned about the future citizens that are going to be produced in this country. or the other point i am making
is that even if we disagree, which we clearly do, we must have an agreement on religious liberty. there is profound deep and moral objection to redefining marriage. giving them power to the state and encouraging judges to do that is the destruction of the very liberty you wish to defend. >> but you are using the government and the state to defend morality as you see it, which is different than my reality. >> i am just recognizing that the government needs to defend in nature something that pre-exists. if they are going to recognize marriage at all this is the definition of the thing because it is the only definition that makes sense as marriage. it might make sense as a private contract. that's another matter. but the reason it is called marriage is because it is a certain type of social institution. >> i would say quickly on the children issue, and i share your concern, i think one of the
bruins to our system is that a whole lot of children in this country no longer live in lousy foster homes and have been adopted by loving gay couples in opposition to those conservatives who opposed it at every step. >> it is better than the welfare state but it is clearly not what we wish to encourage. the question is what do we wish to encourage? >> again, i think the way we find common ground and find a common road forward is conservative goals and libertarian means. i would assume we all share goals in stable, long-term, loving families raising children. and as far as possible, because this is the nature of all family law in the country, it is the optimal situation for children to be raised by their biological parents. on that, youe proceed with libertarian means. i don't think there are a lot of social conservatives who are looking to undo the 15 states
who have decided they want to sponsor gay marriage, at least not those states where that was decided legislatively or through initiatives. in in minnesota they voted for it. they voted for it in my state of washington. recognizing that libertarian means minimizing the amount of governmental interference in our lives as far as possible, combined with conservative goals, would help with communities and strong families and decent values and promoting virtue, not just liberty. that to me is the basis of the modern conservative -- >> there is 35 more states to go on a thing that is what the questioner was targeting, the fact that there are still places trying to recognize same-sex marriage to allow for the religious liberty of those people who want to have -- >> you think that those places should be forced by federal action or do you believe that each state