tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 7, 2014 2:00pm-4:01pm EST
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 should be able to decide its own definition of
marriage? >> i believe the 13th amendment incorporates the bill of rights to all states and that the freedom of association through marriage, as the supreme court a,s set in loving v. virgini we dealt with this issue with interracial marriage -- >> different question. the fact of the color of one's skin is a coincidence. the difference between a male and female a something that is self evident and obvious that we need to deal with. that is part of the human condition. part of liberty is figuring out how we as humans who disagree and have the passions and a governor along ourselves. that is where we have constitutionalism, to figure out how we do this. we don't force people to live the way we want to live. i am suggesting to that the way the federal government -- what the federal government is doing
now, rapidly because of judges, will upend every social institution in this country, and that kind of revelatory change is something the conservatives and libertarians should all be opposed to because it is going to destroy this country. i'mhis goes to just -- actually surprised, really surprised to hear you take the position you do, because as a libertarian, you are taking a judgesn that 9 unelected should impose their will and their judgment on the sovereign -- all 50 sovereign states and the citizens therein in terms of something fundamental to society as the definition of family the definition of marriage. that it seems to me is an error edition of power or from the people that is totally contrary to libertarian -- arogation of power away from the people that is totally contrary to libertarian ideology. [applause] >> matt, in your book "declaration of independent
s," you say that libertarianism is "a permanent on governing minority." but at some point, don't libertarians have to take over to become a majority to make sure all of us benefit? >> look, we're about 15% of the country if you look at things generously. we are not going to take over anything. you are probably all happier for that. if you have been in a room full of libertarians you'll know exactly what i'm talking about. -- we operate in a margin i'm saying "we." i shouldn't say "we." my entire readership of my magazine hates it if i say "we" for "reason" magazine, let alone libertarianism. libertarians are professionally disappointed by the activities of both major parties for various reasons. them times it is because the parties have failed to live up to their own best ideas, which many people in this room can agree took place between the years 2003 and 2007, for
example, when we had what was supposed to become according to david brooks, a permanent republican majority. it is going to last forever. they boosted the size and scope of government in ways that wasn't seen -- was up seen, and that people rightly object to when barack obama has mimicked it. the question for libertarians i think that's what we are to see is more ad hoc -- i think what we are going to see is more ad hoc swarms into coalition partners. this room was packed earlier. i hope that many of you were here talking about rick perry and bernie kerrick and other people really, really interesting work on reforming the criminal justice is and that is incarcerated 200-plus americans but that is an amazing thing that is happened, happened from the bottom up. finally some politicians started noticing, including some conservatives leading on this issue. i will embrace rick perry and kiss him on both cheeks and say thank you for leading on this issue and if there is a
democratic governor who wants to do the same thing, i will do that, too. a lot of the best action in american politics and society, whether it is from my point of view, not necessarily yours come in reforming the drug war system, marijuana, homeschooling, a lot of different areas of american life , what the action is outside of the system and why from politicians. politicians are terrified to lead. it is americans and flowing permanently into these little coalitions to actually break these stupid logjams that both parties have contributed. >> alexander, let me bring you into with this political discussion. 2016 wins and we will not get away from politics -- 2016 looms and we will not get away from politics. hubble believe it will be a strong libertarian candidate for president who does not have a chance to be elected. it may be a fairly tolerable -- republican party candidate who has a better chance. who will you support?
>> it is very early to start saying who i will support. >> which kind of candidate would you guide people toward? >> i will guide people towards whoever is the most libertarian and that might be someone in the libertarian party, and maybe a republican. there might be good democrats -- probably not at the presidential of the, but at the local and state level who have libertarian philosophies that libertarian voters should be happy to vote for. and they will be. that is why this conversation is really important. one of the big things that divides libertarians and conservatives right now are these social issues. there is a question as to whether libertarians should maintain the alliance with conservatism that has been around for a long time or whether we should form other alliances or develop our own effort. we should figure out if there is a way to work together. i think there is, but we need to have some give on both sides. >> one other question from the audience here, back to my original point, why has government defined marriage at all?
that is in the libertarian party platform. [applause] >> the government defines marriage because ultimately, when marriages pick apart and there are children in the marriage, a government is inevitably involve could how most can you settle who gets custody of children, who is going to be responsible for supporting children? marriage is a contractual relationship. eric is not a private relationship -- marriage is not a private relationship with my wife and i are planning our sons wedding and it is not private at all. there are lots of people involved in lots of legalities. in jewish tradition, it is a contractual relationship. in factual relationships -- ourractual relationships in society are enforced and arbitrated by the government could what is fascinating here is the notion that particularly with gay at option, which, by the way, i've supported for a long time because i believe that a loving, stable gay couple is a much better place to put a child
that either with a single father or a single mother or in some kind of institution. [applause] and i think that most conservatives can acknowledge that. but having said that, if you have gay adoption and the couple breaks apart, it obviously has to be a governmental matter. it is going to come before a court. courts need to be governed by legalities. -- what dortarians you guys do with matt spalding, who wrote in his book, "in a nation of limited government, religion is the greatest source of the virtue and moral character required for self rule." does that fly in the face of the autonomy that is inherent in the libertarianism? >> not for me. that very well might be true. i don't know. if it is true, i'm totally happy with it. ses of the geniu
mechanism is that we not only have some separation between church and state, what we allow for religious competition. my wife is french, and francis a dominant catholic country -- france is a dominant catholic country, and they have a different idea and it is amazing to me and to them to see how the amount of religious devotion in this country and the amazing good works that churches do in this country, which is totally not replicated anywhere else in europe, which has a much different approach towards these issues. our free-market religion, which might sound crass, is a wonderful thing. churches are integral -- i don't know how integral, but they are integral to how communities get built and americas mccain. -- america is maintained. point -- we are having 2 different conversations mixed up
to one as a political conversation about existing policies here and now. the broader, more philosophical question -- there i think we misunderstand it when we talk fall the various isms we into, libertarian, conservatism, whatever it might be that the true fusion of western civilization is and what the founders did themselves, not -- the cause of what they compost, a strong -- what their competition a strong moral background and an in the groundings of liberty with freedom constitution. rather than bickering, we will continue to bicker over policies until night comes, but we should continue to focus on why that agreement, the thing which is -- which has created the greatest freedom on the face of the earth, that is the fusion. liberty andfor
protect religious liberty in a very powerful way. that is our model. >> wait a minute, matt welch has written in his book, "one-size-fits-all color is fading. americans are becoming more individualized, not just with their personal choices, with their ideology and politics." does that give you concern? >> no, it doesn't. one-size-fits-all is progressive liberalism. the expansion state. there's complete agreement on the question. there's also increasing diversity in society partially because of technology, which is true. the diversityin of opinions, including religious opinions, it is exactly james madison's argument about the constitution could do that diversity he also mechanize, as did jefferson and washington and all the other founders, is based upon a unity, philosophical unity which they said was self-evident, a moral claim. these things have to go together. you can't have a difference of liberty in a practical sense
that first organizing that we recognize a moral precept that cannot be denied, that all men are created equal. that is a fundamental truth, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. >> i think a major departure point -- i agree with most of that -- is somebody that i have faith that exists in america, it is written into our dna, through the constitution, through our cultural patterns, transmitted. i've a feeling that is going to exist. i don't worry that this country is going to be destroyed on that at all. >> i wouldn't disagree with you, because particularly when you have government promoting multiculturalism, which is the opposite of americanization, the idf not -- the idea of not e p many one,um, out of but out of one, many, the government is taking at hugely destructive role. government should not force anything, but encourage the idea
that we're one nation, one culture, and that we share common precepts and responsibilities. it seems to me it's fundamental to a flourishing republic. >> i just think the culture takes care of that itself. i don't think we need government to teddy roosevelt-style tell us -- >> but back from government -sponsored multiculturalism and government-sanctioned -- look, i do not believe that we should outlaw the sticking of anything which other than english. but it seems to me absurd and destructive to the republic that we now print alice in 70 languages -- printed ballots and 70 languages. if people vote in the united states issued -- they should share a common line which could >. >> wherein you saying we needed to mechanize that one comes from the many rather than many comes from the one? >> no, that isn't raising the idea -- that is him raising the idea that you share something with your neighbor, the ability
to communicate with them. [applause] >> the problem here is that libertarianism is too defensive in the sense that it assumes that whenever we talk about any unity, and means absolute unity. which we object to as well. the question is, can we have any unity, anything upon which we agree? >> very good. >> the point is, we can't have freedom -- to get history before 1776. there was no freedom in the world that came near what americans contest. -- what americans accomplished. why? it was fun by absolute kings and absolute rulers or run by complete and utter anarchy. we agree on certain things that are unalienable, and on the basis of that, government should be based upon consent. those are the 2 sides of the coin and they follow like night and day. alexander, do you think we
are destined to remain in a two-party system, or do you see a breaking up and realignment on a big scale coming in the future? >> i think there's a lot of things in the political system of the united states to prevent a third-party from really taking a significant role. but what i think we are going to is that if demographic trends change over time, politicians will have to adopt new positions to get elected, which is what they exist for. rising libertarian nature of today's youth does mean that i suspect the republican party to become more libertarian to be elected could i also suspect the democratic party will become more libertarian to appeal to young voters. you'll see major oc reforms as a consequence of that -- you will see major policy reforms as a consequence of that. i'm a i actually agree with you completely and i want to take the opportunity -- i've become
somewhat notorious and been widely criticized by the libertarian party -- that is large l libertarian party, as an institution -- for always refer to them on my radio show as a losertarian party and not a party but a quasireligious death cult. [laughter] finishes thet kool-aid and joins the system by participating in one of our viable political parties, it can make huge contributions by emphasizing the proper small government, minimize government, the kerry means to achieving means to libertarians achieving either the goals that conservatives or liberals favor. >> in opposition to that, as george will said, listing the the singlesting -- most interesting thing happening in politics right now is the
debate in this room, the fronts of conservatism. the tea party for my money has been the single most interesting new phenomenon in american politics. [applause] overou crazy hooters there, you know that part of the reason that happened was the tea party said no, we're not going to stay on the reservation. we are not going to join forever and be counted on forever to reliably vote forever for your candidate -- for your damn candidate. we want candidates to stand up for the values we have that have not been represented. so when they said, yeah, we will lose, we will nominate christine o'donnell, who cares, they announced that karl rove and the political establishment in washington that values matter more than ready candidates and the people you want to nominate and we will change the type of republic that goes to washington. he have new republicans in washington because -- we have new republicans in washington because people said i will be
more of our free agent lyrically and use independence as a weapon and we have interesting people like rand paul and justin amash who were inconceivable in american politics in 2000 and and i think that is a great thing. ofat hillsdale we make all our students learn something about america and the constitution. and one of the things we ask of to school they come and i asked them what kind of conservative you are, they say i'm a libertarian, paleo con, neocon, you name it -- that is the wrong question. that immediately points to differences. what do we wish to conserve? that is american liberty. [laughter] [applause] this country is the most powerful force for liberty on the face of the earth, and we are on the verge of losing that country, and if we don't come together in a powerful way, the way the founders did, we are going to visit and we should be an instrument of losing.
>> ladies and gentlemen, these welcome foster freez -- foster fries, founder of fries foundation. [applause] >> always nice to be at cpac and see a lot of people who care could i have the honor of introducing rick santorum. why do we love this guy? number one, what he says is who he is. i was a donor to his campaign
and he would not listen to anything i tried to convince him. "i know what is going on, don't try to influence me." when he told a speech in iowa, when he talked about his grandfather's big hands that dumped: the minds of pennsylvania until he was 72 years -- dumped coal in the mines of pennsylvania until he was 72 years old, we heard the media say that this could be the first time republicans run a blue-collar candidate. i think of the way rick things about life and the way he was able to win in pennsylvania, which is heavily democratic -- opponentsdemocratic and had another incumbent democrat dropout. his vision of looking up for the little guy, his ability to the think about the worker as much as the guy who built the company. what about all the people who work in those companies? he has a heart for those predators why the obama campaign
-- this is not widely known that she has a heart for those workers. this is why the obama campaign -- this is not widely known -- we were concerned about the weight you are appealing to the blue-collar workers in those states and we are glad that you did not move far ahead. i was on the campaign with him in minneapolis, i believe, and the pastor said, "what is your favorite bible verse?" :"pray for those who persecute you." if any of us in this room has received more persecution then rick santorum, i don't know who you are. but this guy knows what he believes and knows his heart and is willing to take the great that people throw at him and that is what is special about rick, too. if you look at the polls, when he came out of these states, up till noon, romney was a maybe 5%. in the afternoon, rick was up, and vice versa. the point i want to make is that
when you look at the people who voted after 5:00 p.m., in one state rick was up 20% of the after who voted for him the 5:00 time. that is a very significant thing. those are the people working and getting things done. , he couldn'tle say win last time. remember, in that election, the governor of pennsylvania lost by 20 percentage points. secondly, the democrats ran a pro-life candidate against him. thirdly, conservatives had no specterwhat his backing was about. he basically backed arlen specter because he and bush made a deal. to me, and some people have criticized him for that position, it is a profile in courage and who rick santorum is and i'm glad to be his friend and i'm glad to be a supporter and i wish the heck i could beat him in golf once in a while. welcome rick santorum. [applause]
>> thank you very much. thank you very much, foster, i think [laughter] . [laughter] it is always a joy to be with foster friess. it's always -- you never know what you're going to get. i've been watching a little bit of what is going on here at cpac, and i hear a lot of "we have to win." now, we all know what they mean. they actually mean "we have to lose." we have to lose those currently unfashionable stances on cultural and limited government issues that have been proven over time to give americans the best chance for a healthy, happy life.
so we are told that we have to put aside what we believe is in the best interest of the country.p so a republican candidate can win. that will result in a win for a republican candidate, but it will be a devastating loss for america. [applause] you, but i'mabout not out here fighting just to elect republican candidates and let them win. i'm here to see america win. [applause] by the way, how did it work out for the republican establishment following their lead nominating moderate candidates in the last 2 presidential elections? we have a bunch of leaders in this country who don't believe conservative
policies can be the basis of a winning national election, and so they put forth candidates that keep apologizing for the principles they say they believe in, and then they wonder why they lose. [applause] i want to win, too. i think everybody here wants to win. but unlike a lot of these beltway talking heads, i am not pontificating. i actually put my neck out there , and just about every other body part. you may recall that i ran for president in 2012. [applause] run to put forth issues. iran because i wanted us to win the white house -- i ran because i wanted us to win the white house. i wanted us to be successful in
transforming america away from the policies of this administration, to create a better america for the people who are struggling. and let's make no mistake about it, millions and millions and millions more people are struggling because of the policies of this administration. and in spite of being outspent 4-5-1 in all most every state, we won 11 states, more states than any second-place finisher since a guy who finished second back in 1976 named reagan. [applause] now the popular consensus of the media is he one because he is a conservative, a cultural conservative, he appealed to the cultural conservative voters. that really wasn't true. let's be honest, everybody in that race was a cultural conservative. they all had the same positions i have. almost identical. but you wouldn't know that. no, we went out and talked about something different.
we went out and talked about focusing on those who are working americans. notice i didn't say "middle-class." i don't know why we do this, fellow conservatives and republicans. why do we believe -- why do we use the term come i should say, that is of the other side? why do we as republicans who believe in the dignity of every human life, who believe in equality of opportunity, for everyone to rise, adopt a class-envy leftist language that divides americans against themselves? [applause] classes in america? you real -- do we really accepted the fact that there are classes in america? why do we use that language?
we have to stop that, we have to stop acting like them and somehow feel we should reach out to -- we can reach out to folks. we should use the term "working americans," because unlike them we think that work is a good thing. [applause] class rhetoric because they are all about dividing one class from another, one ethnic group against another, one group of americans -- that is what they do, they divide. let them divide. let us unify. [applause] you saw from the news today president obama's policies continue to create an ever increasing wealth gap in america . when i was out there campaigning, i was talking about the 70% of americans who will not get a college degree. have college degrees, and that number is not changing at all in america. what are we going to do to talk
to them? ,ur answer has always been well, we will cut taxes for high-income people. now, i believe in that policy, but if you are sitting there under employed, unemployed, looking for a job i'm wanting to move up in your job, and all we are talking about is cutting taxes for high-income people, doesn't exactly connect emotionally. it doesn't exactly resonate with the people we are talking about. so what i did is i talked about, yes, cutting taxes, but for manufacturing so that we can create jobs for those folks who don't go to college that are good paying jobs so they can rise in society and provide for their families. [applause] celebrate that all work is good work, whether it is manufacturing or energy, the road to things we can grow and expand and really get behind and create not just a quality of life for people who are working
but better energy prices and better quality goods and services for people here in america who are not in this jobs. that is a plan and a vision that connects with those folks who stayed home in the last couple of elections. we saw this in ohio, hundreds of thousands of people who stayed votebecause they couldn't for barack obama, they knew that his policies were her and is an -- his them -- them policies were horrendous and were hurting them -- them, not just the country, but them. but they also couldn't vote for us. they couldn't vote for us because they didn't think we .are they didn't think we cared about them. so they stayed home. and now we are here, because we didn't connect with them. ladies and gentlemen, times are uncertain in america, even today.
we saw the unemployment number is not getting any better. the addictions that the economy is going to falter again. people are nervous, anxious, and yes, fearful. people ask me, why did we not win an election when so many people were doing so poorly and the economy was so bad? fear. look at where barack obama got the votes. he got the votes from people who are most economically vulnerable. fear. and we are out there saying we will cut this and cut that and cut this, and you are sitting there holding on by your fingernails. we have no message for you as to how things are going to get better for you? not for the employer who might hire you. we are in trouble as a party. -- were's the sad part are the party who has the policies that would work best for these folks.
we are the party that will create growth and opportunity. we are the party that believes in restoring something that is roping in most of the communities where people are struggling -- that is broken in most of the communities where people are struggling, the merrick and family. i talked about how important it was that the american family be the center of all of our policies, our economic policies, because if you look at it, the word "economy" comes from a greek word which means home or families. the first economy is the home. and when the home breaks down, the economy breaks down. [applause] i don't want to talk about redefining marriage. i want to talk about reclaiming marriage as a good for society, and celebrity how important it is for our economy. [applause]
but that is not what we did. that is not what we did. we went out and talked about job creators, and that is what we do as republicans. we got to face it. we talked as if everybody who is a voter is like us. people who type a want to reach for the brass ring? you know what? we need folks like that and we need policies that encourage people to do that. but you know what, we also need folks who are going to work 9-to-5 and then go home and coach little league. we need them to work in the library and volunteer -- [applause] and to be the parent in the neighborhood when another parent isn't around. we need people like that. that is the backbone of america, these folks who don't value just family andthey value communities and children. america is a great country
because we have that strong infrastructure of family and community, and ladies and gentlemen, it is falling apart. 40% of children in america are born to a single mother. 40. in the poor neighborhoods, it is 3 out of 4. in neighborhoods, there are no dads. i hear ben carson, he gives a wonderful talk about how he was raised by a single mom but he had dads in the community who helped. there are no dads. you say what can government do about it? well, what can government do about getting people to stop smoking? it turned out a heck of a lot. what can private enterprise do to help support marriage? it turns out, when they take the cause, it turns out they can do a lot. what about education? how do we get the educational institutions behind valuing
marriage and talking about the importance of it? how about businesses saying they will give marriage counseling as part of a benefit. how about we have a movement to reclaim the true, beautiful institution of marriage? [applause] we talked about job creators, not jobholders. i will give you the classic example during the campaign. it was on a convention night. i spoke that night and i was backstage and i saw all of these folks who are wonderful people, small business people, some big business people. and all throughout the convention hall was a packard that." d "we built as you remember, president obama said, "hey, you didn't build that." we got all outraged -- "yes, we
did!" we trotted out small business person after large business person to say to the small percentage of this is people who start their own businesses in america is that we built it. we didn't send one server at a restaurant to go out there on that stage and talk about how great -- grateful she was that her employer sacrificed a lot to .reate a job for her we didn't have that employer walked out on the same stage and around that server and say "i thank god for the work that you do." that is uniting america, not dividing america. [applause] we as -- look, i understand why people come out on the stage and they bang away at president
obama. i mean, i know. it's fun. i get that. [laughter] it's also easy. getting easier, i might add. but that isn't going to win people who are sitting at home who are hurting. they don't feel better. we feel better. i think we need to take a lesson from someone who is maybe the most popular person in the world right now, pope francis. [applause] there might be some people who are surprised that rick santorum is suggesting we take lessons from pope francis. but i do. because what pope francis is doing, he is going out there and not talking about what the christian faith is against. he is going out there and talking about what it's for. [applause]
he hasn't changed a single policy. he won't change a single policy. do is he willll go out there and talk about the ,ood news to hurting world because he believes that that is what the world needs. it needs the lord. well, we are not a religion and we will not go out there and talk about the good news. but what we need to do is talk about the news of a good america, and what that could america can be. we need to paint a picture for people. we need to use a brush where they see themselves in the painting. lifesee a part of their --re they hear someone say they see it and they say
"that's me." we need to be the "that's me" party. there are a lot more speakers will come up and you will have a lot of fun cheering and stomping your feet and railing obama, get it out of your system. ,ecause after we leave here we've got a job to do. we got to win. [applause] and we will win not by further dividing. we will win by uniting could i ,sk each and every one of you candidates and supporters of candidates, to go out and stand for that underemployed person working 2 jobs, talk about what we are going to do to help. stand with the unemployed. stand with a single mom holding things together. stand with the people who are fearful, because fear is power.
is whatcoming fear makes america the greatest country in the world, and you can be a part of that. , we have anentlemen --ortunity, yes, because look, they are messing up big time trade we have an opportunity. let's not blow it by just talking about them. let's talk about how we can build a great america again. thank you, and god bless you. [applause] ♪ ["the power of love" playing]
>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome back the honorable al chairman of the american conservative union. >> thank you very much. my first time to formally welcome you to cpac. hope you are having a great time, and god bless america. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, this is the place where big ideas can be fearlessly discussed about our .uture our future as individuals and our future as a nation. but as americans, we are feeling as if we are losing our identity.
our exceptional and unique character. our fundamental values are being threatened every day by a government that has got little respect for the hard-working individual, individuals like you. my parents lost their home to a communist despot. america opens its doors to us and we arrived in 1960, full of our dreamabout living come being on the greatest nation on earth. accent, america was easy to understand -- back then, america was easy to understand. the american family was our country's greatest strength. right wasr children our top priority. patriotism was expected, respect for our neighbors, laces of worship in our workplace was more important than how many cars we owned or what designer shoes we were wearing. our heroes were john wayne, the american astronauts, mickey mantle, lucille ball. shortly after our arrival, the
1960's revolution was in full force and challenge to the very core of our values. 1960's music, friendly, is still , is still -- frankly my favorite, and our penchant for promoting civil rights was commendable. it also brought along increased government dependency and the so-called war on poverty. , we cannot claim victory in the war on poverty. today more families are dependent on food stamps, more and more children are growing up without ever knowing a loving home. gettoo many in our society by with narcissism and instant gratification could our president has chosen a divisive path, embracing class warfare, expanding entitlements without need of reform, emoting the redistribution of your hard-earned money as he sees fit, and lamenting job killing -- ands lack obamacare
lamenting job killing measures like obamacare that raise taxes and discourage investment. the result is an america where far too many of our fellow citizens have lost hope and find happiness to be an elusive and unattainable condition. this instills fear in their hearts and conservatives can and should offer hope. so for the first time in our history, self-doubt has caused americans to ask ourselves, who are we and what are we all about? the engine of america for almost 2.5 centuries has always been fueled by men and women from all stations of life who knew, believed in, and fought for preserving the important idea that this america is a land of opportunity for all, a place where if you got up early, you work hard, you took care of your family, our america guaranteed you certain inalienable rights
which would provide you with a , ater future for all place where any citizen could start a business, worship and speak freely, and with a pure heart, strong backbone, have a chance to rise to the top of one's field and become exceptional. this is the america that i know. how for me consider america was and hopefully still is the nation that i believe in. this delicate balance between the needs of the citizenry and the always creeping needs of the state is taken for granted by those who would rather win a new cycle can provide bold and principled leadership -- than provide bold and principled leadership. [applause] let me share with you, if i may, my story. think about your priorities while you were growing up -- friends, sports, school, maybe a
sweetheart. pledged allegiance to the flag every morning and traded sandwiches at lunch time. you thought about the future and what you wanted to be -- maybe a doctor, lawyer, car mechanic, sports star. there was no ceiling to the dreams you had for yourself. in 1950's, i was living in havana, cuba. our country was an ally of america, but undergoing a revolution led by fidel castro. as it unfolded, our family was the center of my life. we operated a family-owned business, went to church, celebrated holidays together. i went out to play sports with my friends and came back home to a loving home. and what felt like it -- and what felt like an instant, the life i loved in cuba turned into a nightmare at the hands of a dictator. the life of a 12-year-old suddenly became one plate with worry for my family and friends. i was wracked with despair at a young age to see the hurt and the pain that filled our days as
castro's agents murdered friends and destroyed our livelihood. we were forced to surrender the business my family had built by hand. i grandfather put 40 years of hard work into this business only to have it taken away right in front of his eyes, my eyes. the homes that provided us with shelter became government property. we lost our right to speak up, we fear for our lives, we could openly express -- we cannot openly expose our religion, but to leady turned to god us to safety. our prayers led us to america, a place of hope. government took it all. we fled our homeland to go to a place beyond our dreams. sure enough, it was. the newfound freedom gave us a chance to start again. i witnessed the horrors of a too-powerful government and my parents lost a country president.
america is our last hope, a place where everyone has an equal chance to succeed, where our laws are respected and not ignored by a power-hungry president who works alone in a place where we put a greater value on matters of the heart than physical possessions. our america is a place of greatness now, and will be forever. we want people to be successful and we need to empower the individual. the government doesn't create jobs. it is the private sector, it is hard-working people, it is a free market. [applause] it is free market that lets americans take chances to pursue their dreams. what was so exciting to me about america was that i knew anybody could be a success. many great success stories came from meager beginnings. mine certainly was a meager beginning. providing inspiration to those who could think big, focus, and
work hard. with the crushing weight of higher taxes, more regulations, and greater uncertainty caused by an overpowering in administration, the dream of the young entrepreneur setting up shop in their parents garage is dwindling. to this administration, a strong free-market and the businesses it comprises are the enemy. it is the overall culture created by president obama, one where government knows best and we are treated like subjects, ponds in a game of chess where religious police and rights are fair game. take the sisters of the poor, subject to defend their religious beliefs on a public when forced to comply with the strangling mandates of obamacare. we reached a tipping point where religious groups are forced to act against their beliefs and are ostracized for disagreeing with this overwhelming government. we must stand against this
growing expansion of government. i have seen this dark road before, and i know firsthand the risks that come with interesting too much power in the hands of bureaucrats -- entrusting too much power in the hands of bureaucrats. we have the power to create a bright future for our children and grandchildren. as conservatives, we know the owntions lie within our belief in limited government and individual empowerment. and as conservatives, we must recognize that success only comes when we focus on the biggest threats to our freedom and our liberty. our biggest threats are not coming in the form of other conservatives. the biggest threats to our country are coming from liberals, and if we are to effectively battle -- [applause] thank you. thank you. thank you. if we are to effectively battle the forces that endanger our
country, we must not battle each other. our passion, our energy is best used against those who seek to expand government could we have far too much work to do to spend one more minute on the internal workings of our movement. .e must unite thank you. thank you. [applause] and work together to provide solutions to our country. they give those who have the freedom to organize politically. -- think of those who have the freedom to organize politically. how fortunate they are to use the opportunity we have in this conservative movement. the american conservative union believes that americans are just really seeking help, searching for a more powerful movement that addresses the challenges our country is facing with gold, time-tested -- a bold, time-tested principles in a confident and determined manner with solutions, optimism, and a version of a better tomorrow for all. cpacve gathered today at
again spread from coast to coast. imagine a time when our great country is again governed by the constitution. imagine -- [applause] time when the white house is once again occupied by a friend of liberty. [applause] and you may think i'm talking about electing republicans. i'm not. i'm talking about electing lovers of liberty. [applause] it isn't good enough to pick the lesser of two evils. we must elect men and women of principle and conviction and action who will lead us back to greatness. -- a great andt
tumultuous battle underway for the future not of the republican party, but the future of the entire country. the question is -- [applause] bolduestion is will we be and proclaim our message with passion, or will we be sunshine patriots retreating under adverse fire? will we be firm in our convictions, or will we cower defeated and meekly dilute our message? will we water down the bill of rights, or will we be all on fire like the unstoppable william lloyd garrison? for 30 years, garrison stood as politicians whimpered and compromised and left their fellow man in bondage. garrison would not. .e could not sit quietly by
he rose above those politicians that would leave the country half free, half slave. his voice was unwavering. i will be as harsh as truth and on compromising as justice. i will be in earnest. i will not equivocate. and i will not excuse, i will not retreat an inch, and i will be heard. [applause] will you, america's next generation of liberty lovers, will you stand and be heard? [applause] thank you. thank you. thank you.
thank you. thank you. the sons of liberty who fought against british soldiers writing their own warrants would today make a bonfire of the special orders issued by secret police. they would risk everything to guarantee your right to a trial by jury. they would today call out to the president, they would say "we will not be detained, spied upon, nor have our rights abridged. we will not submit and we will not trade our liberty for security, not now, not ever." [applause]
yet as our voices rising yoursts, the nsa monitors every phone call. if you have a cell phone, you are under surveillance. i believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their dam business -- damn business. i believe this is a profound constitutional question. appliedngle warrant be to millions of americans'phone
records, credit cards? i amovernment says, and telling you the truth, they say you do not own your records, that you were visa statement does not belong to you. i disagree. the fourth amendment is very clear. warrants should be issued by a judge. warrants must be specific to the individual. a single warrant for millions of americans' phone records hardly sounds specific to the individual. they should be based on a probable cause. generalized warrants that do not name an individual and seek the records of millions of individuals goes against the very fabric of the fourth amendment. john adams wrote that james protests against
generalized warrants was the spark that began the american revolution. there's a great battle going on. no forget it. there is a great battle going on for the heart and soul of america. the fourth amendment equally is important as the second amendment, and conservatives cannot forget this. will we sit idly by and let our lives be trampled upon? -- will we be like be like lemmings, running from crushing embrace, or will we say we are free and no man, the matter how well intentioned, will take our freedom from us?
daniel webster anticipated our modern-day saviors who wish to save us from having too much freedom. he wrote good intentions will always be pleaded. it is hardly too strong to say that the constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. how will history remember barack obama? those who had hoped that president obama would somehow be a champion of civil liberties, roger waters might ask, did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? did they get you to exchange a walk on part? did they get you to exchange a walk on part in the war for lead part in the cage? i do not question president
motives, but history will record his timid defense of liberty. when congress passed legislation allowing for the in definite detention of an american citizen without a trial, he shamefully signed it while promising not to use such a power. a great president would have risen to the occasion. instead of merely suggesting that he would not use this dread power, a great president would have taken pan inhand and vetoed -- pen hand and vetoed this abomination. a great president would have loudly proclaimed congress cannot and must not overturn the right to a trial by jury. a great president would have
protected us from the prying eyes of the nsa. a great president would have proclaimed i will not abide it. the constitution will not abide it. our forefathers fought for the right to trial by jury so that not one innocent man would be wrongfully imprisoned. remember richard jewel? everybody thought he was the olympic bomber. he was convicted on television trial.no the only problem was he did not do it. had he been a black man in the south in 1920, he might not have lived to prove his innocence. thene with a memory of times in our history when we did not adequately defend everyone's
rights, when we did not adequately defend everyone's right to a fair and impartial tand now and s be heard. we must defend our rights. justice cannot occur without a trial. this fact should be abundantly clear to any group that has ever been persecuted. by the be a minority color of your skin or the shade of your ideology. who has ever been a minority of thought or religion, anyone who has ever taught their children at home or sought to pray to god without permission should be alarmed that any government might presume to
imprison without a trial. whether you are black or brown or white, man or woman, you should fear a government that maintains the authority to imprison without trial, without a jury. we would not that need a constitution to protect us if government were comprised of angels. guess what -- admitted we were not likely to ever be governed by agngels. it is not so much that president obama has done, although he has done a lot, very little good, but it is not what he has done with his usurpations of power as much as it is the pre
cedent that he sets for lawlessness. if the executive branch can you initiate or if the executive branch can't detain citizens without trial, if it can amend -- if it can amend legislation, if it can declare that congress is in recess, then government, unrestrained by law, becomes nothing short of tyranny. want to skew recognized this. he wrote when the executive ranch usurps the legislative authority, when the president says i can write the laws, write me, a tyranny will ensue and we must stop this president from trading the constitution.
-- treading on the constitution. it is not just the harm that this president is causing. it is the future harm that he allows by destroying the checks and balances that once restrained each of the branches of government. progressives by their own assertion do not want to be bound by any original intent of the constitution or its authors. they believe the constitution is whatever the majority says it is. --ressive's believe that a progressives believe that a majority may separate you from your rights. jim crow, the japanese
internment, today's indefinite detention without trial only occur when we allow our god-given right to be abridged by the girardi vote. our rights are inherent. they are in separate bowl -- they are inseparable from our person. our rights are innate. they come from our creator, and no government can take them away from us. the constitution merely codifies what exists for all time. mr. president, we will not let you, we will not let you run roughshod over our rights. we will challenge you in the courts. we will battle you at the ballot box. mr. president, we will not let
you shred our constitution. our future hangs in the balance. we can debate a jobless death, a and alarming bothersome and abusive regulatory state, but know this -- you cannot have prosperity without freedom. it is not a message of the haves versus the have-nots, the rich versus the poor, it is a message for anyone who wishes to own their own destiny. will not greatest flicker if we believe in ourselves, believe in our founding documents, believe i that. not only great prosperity, but
it sure in their generosity. anybody who thinks it is great to be poor in cuba, america is the most generous nation on earth. we cannot forget about it, but it came with our freedom. they go together. it is going to take all of us to gather. it is going to take a national revival of liberty. america's greatness, exceptional character is not in our dna, but it is in our founding documents, that for the first time in history rewards all individuals, regardless of birth, ethnicity, it is a republic that restrained government, not the individual. your task is not to minimize the loss of freedom, not to clutch it. your job is to maximize your liberty. let's do it together. let's take a stand. and the president refused to -- of american
citizens, i took a stand. i filibustered. some things are worth fighting for. spied discovered the nsa on and was collecting every ierican citizen's records, took a stand. i sued the president. it is decidedly not a time for the faint of heart. it is a time for boldness and action. the time is now. stand with me. let us stand together with liberty. thank you, and god bless america.
happening in the national harbor in prince george's county. we are opening up our phone lines. we have covered here today about five hours. try to read some of your facebook comments as well. #cspanchat. we will get to some of those, too. we plan to start at 12:40 tomorrow eastern. let's go to don in massachusetts. don is not there. randy in springfield, ohio. go ahead. caller: just wanted to comment about rand paul doing a great job, and hopefully he can be our next presidential candidate. hisoming into here
speech, you have been a supporter for a while? >> i have been. in the past i was stepping for precinct and i was a captain in cincinnati. i pretty involved with the local party here. i live north of dayton, ohio. >> rand paul giving his speech today, just a year or so against -- a year or so after his filibuster in the senate. coming up on monday night, on c-span2. janet on our independent line. >> hi. i am in pennsylvania, and i am sick, but if you could bear with me. was really got my attention senator rand paul's comments
about trial by jury. words.se very broad i thought that was so important for that to be talked about today. it was just amazing how much and how well he is informed about our constitution, and i just wish everybody would be able to hear what he has to say. -- that was so important for me because it was very true. paul'stion on twitter to speech. if the gop wants to make noise, they need to become more like rand paul. gop needs to stop having people like rick santorum from --aching and teaching preaching about religion. turns people off. was sos so disappointed,
disheartening. i have never seen so much hatred coming from people's mouths. this is why the country is the way it is. we need to be practicing love, not war. i pray for all of those that spoke today because they said much of nothing. >> amarillo, texas, republican line. good afternoon. >> hello. i am calling to speak about rand paul. i thought his message was marvelous. where our country is going, and it is frightening. i am elderly. i have been around since roosevelt. and this is absolutely one of the worst times i can remember. thank you. >> one of the things that they do at cpac is the annual straw poll on presidential candidates, and they do a day by day thing. the results, the chairman of the
conservative hq, rand running a ted cruz distant second. here is standing in lexington, kentucky. >> yes. i want to comment on rent paul ul's speech. i feel he would be an excellent present with ted cruz on the ticket. it is so exciting and refreshing to hear him and his love for the constitution. have put our constitution on the back burner with our president we have got now. >> what is the sense in kentucky of whether senator paul will run? >> we are hoping he will run. he is awesome. he is just a fine man. he is honest. he is going to be a great president.
that is all i got to say. i watch you every day. >> thanks for calling. alfonzo is in chicago on democrats' line. >> hi, i just wanted to ask how the gop plans to get a more themse group to vote for in the crowd is indicative of who they are going after. >> in terms of the gender and their racial makeup of the crowd? >> yes, sir. living noa tweet from limits, and more on the policy that this viewer heard discussed so far. heard one new plan, no plans, policies we have not heard before. even put downs of pbo and old. nominee is not
rand paul, it's jeb bush. go ahead, joe. tennessee, hello, you're on the air. >> how are you doing? just wanted to see what you thought about the indefinite detention, and what you believe. how come nobody talks about it that much? it seems like a really big deal. i mention it to everybody, and even my family do not seem to be worried about it so much, and so i want to see what you think and why people are so worried about it when it is actually a very big deal. >> you're the second caller to mention it. were you surprised senator paul talked about it? >> of course, if you watch mainstream media, you've heard about it when it happened the
first couple times, but not a lot about it. of ourhe beginning constitution crumbling, and it is one of the biggest things that i have seen in a while the pain -- in a while that we need to pay attention to. >> today started with texas governor rick perry with a cpacine, perry fires up with a call for rebellion. here is an independent color. -- caller. that there isised all these people, but they have all lost elections. that is very interesting, that they are preaching and talking how to winto do and elections, but they have not won their elections. >> you're talking mainly about the presidential elections? >> but also christine o'donnell
and sarah palin. frommorrow we will hear sarah palin. the date gets underway, our coverage gets underway tomorrow eastern. we will hear from newt gingrich, palin.lter, sarah 12:40 eastern on c-span. jan is in new york, democrats' line. >> hello. what i would like to say is as a democrat i found very little that senator paul said that i disagree with. i agree with him completely about the overreach of the federal government. a lot of that is and i will catch a lot of flack for this is a result of the overreaction of government to the events on nile 11 -- on 9/11.
and i have come to the conclusion that what we need in this country is a third party that will return us to our original constitution. >> hang on the line. your calling on the democrats' line. here's a tweet from michael who cpac ands watching says 2014 social issues drive people away that agree with us on fiscal issues. follow the constitution. would you agree with his tweet? >> yes, i would agree with his tweet. think churches should stay in church. we need to have a political party or republican or democrat, toward who will return us our original foreign policy, nonintervention that was envisioned by the founding
libertarianism, and the enforcement of the civil liberties at home, economic populism that will lift the economy. >> appreciate your call. saying in new york, richard, white plains. >> good afternoon. i would like to address the woman who asked the question, why do republicans not win elections? were apointed out there number of speakers who have not won elections. >> it is an anomaly and eating is cpac there is9 are twice as many people who identify themselves as conservative. when 90% of the news media are comprised of liberals, basically
they are feeding the public the democrat talking points. that is a simple explanation for it. minnesota, cindy is on the republican line. >> i wanted to comment about rand paul. i am familiar with him to his father, whom i supported. what i would like viewers, that they are getting to know rand paul, he is a republican, he is for the republican party, just like his father. he is an american. he is 100% for our constitution. i want to caution others about the candidates, the words other candidates use, because basically i guess in a nutshell we do not want wannabes, we want someone who is truly for our constitution. i believe that jesus said it best when he said you will know them by their fruits. thank you. >> let's check in a couple of
anything to say about the veterans issues and the pensions and all of those things that are in the media and have been controversial in congress this year. it looks to me like the democrats are increasingly developing their appeal to veterans, and the republicans and conservatives could find lot ofves out of a support that they sort of take for granted. >> thanks for the call. thanks for all your input. more tonight. we will show you today's coverage beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. live coverage saturday, 12:40 eastern, sarah palin, ann coulter, newt gingrich. part of the lineup tomorrow beginning at 12:40 eastern.
we will bring you to a panel discussion on privacy issues, and you will hear from a former reagan justice department official. he says edward snowden is a patriot for doing what he did. jim gilmore calls snowden a traitor for the revelations of nsa secrets. this is from earlier today at the conservative political action conference. ♪ >> all right. good morning. good to be here with you today. i have the privilege of being with the panel here to discuss what i think is one of the defining issues of our time, and that is where are we going to set the line as a country between the government that rightfully protects us against some very serious threats, terrorism, for an attorney, and the government that has a
capability to invade our privacy and potentially infringe on our liberties. the panel we have today will do a great job of exploiting those issues for you. i will introduce them in a second, but i wanted to make one other mention here. have an important argument to make, and we live in a troubling time that will challenge us to think more about this than just today. that may get right to the panel. the honorable jim gilmore served as the 68th governor of virginia. today he works as the president of free congress and american opportunity. he builds healthy communities that bring innovative policies. in virginia he did a lot of remarkable things. he reduced the property tax on
cars by 70%. he increased funding for historically black colleges. first chief executive in the united states to create a cabinet-level position focused on technology. he is a veteran of the army. back in 1999 he served as the chairman of a congressional panel that became known as the gilmore commission. governor, welcome here. . all right. our next panelist you have seen on radio and television. the honorable bruce fine. he served as the deputy
associate attorney general during the reagan years. he was a director for the republicans on covert arms sales to iran. he has been a visiting fellow at heritage. he has advised numerous countries on constitutional reform. he is regularly called to testify before congress. he is a founder of the litchfield group. bruce,, onboard here. all rights. up last person i will bring does not need a pair of bifocals to read my cue cards. founder -- he has a
fan club. is the founder of turning point usa, a national student movement dedicated to young people about capitalism. usaas grown turning point from nothing to having representation in over 100 high schools and college compasses -- campuses across the country. he has appeared on fox news over 60 times. charlie,, board. all right. very good. i am going to walk over to the conversation, and we will listen to someone who has been in the news daily. about how the surveillance state functions. does it target the actions of americans? focused and it is essay, it is focused on getting
intelligence by any means possible. italy's on the grounds of self certification that they serve the national interest. asginally we saw that foreign intelligence gathered overseas. increasingly we see it is happening domestically. the nsa specifically targets the communications of everyone. it is not just somebody by to fall. it filters them and analyzes them and measures them and it stores them for periods of time because that is the easiest, most efficient, and most valuable way to achieve these ends. while they may be intending to target someone associated with a foreign government or someone they suspect of terrorism, they're collecting your communications to do so. any analyst at any time can target anyone. where those communications will
be picked up depends on a range of the sensor networks and the authorities at that analyst is empowered with, and not all lists have the ability to target anything. i sitting at my desk had the authority to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president, if i had a personal e-mail. >> at is a dramatic statement. before we start let's mention one thing. if you want to tweet russians, we will bring those up to the panel. bruce, let me start with you. you just heard what edward snowden said. you presented -- you represented his family last year. is he a traitor to the nation or is he a hero? >> he is more in the line of a patriot, spain described as someone who saved his country
from his government. what mr. snowden said -- [applause] was if anything an understatement. all of you in the idea and its -- in the audience, all up here, all members of the senate and house, has had all of their telephony metadata, whether a domestic or international call, since may of 2006 collected and stored in a database without any suspicion at all that our phone related to is foreign intelligence, international terrorism, or otherwise. it is a staggering dated base. the testimony they intended to keep this massive collection of information secret from the american people forever. the program has no end point to it. according toars, two panels selected by president obama, the program has foiled
zero international terrorism plots. has produced basically nothing. the justification is that according to the nsa operators it gives us the confidence level that there in fact is no connection between all of you in the audience and international terrorism. surveillance now is authorized not because they are is suspected wrongdoing, because there is not, and they want confirmation of that. that shows how far we have, from the original meaning of the fourth amendment, which was captured in a statement that was addressed to the british parliament in 1763. the poorest man is castle maybe defying all the forces of the crowd. may be frail, the roof fascia, the wind may blow through it, the storms may enter, the rains may enter, the king of england cannot enter. all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.
that, ladies and gentlemen, is the spirit of the fourth amendment that we have totally lost. the default is issued in the united states in the eyes of the founding fathers was our right to be left alone from any government intrusion unless there was some reasonable to believe we are connected with some kind of wrongdoing. we do not have to give a reason to be left alone. it is our right because we are human beings. it is a government that needs to give a reason. collectingre telephony metadata on everyone in the room forever, that does not satisfy the fourth amendment. saw you nodding your head. maybe you're shaking it, perhaps. what do you think of what snowden did? >> talking about edward snowden, which is what bruce related and addressed here, but i well adjusted. the first thing i will do as i want to be sure that everybody in this room understands where i come from in the past. i've been the governor of
virginia. i was the governor of virginia during the 9/11 attack. i know very well what this is about. when i was the chairman of the advisory panel on homeland security and terrorism, i spoke out against the accumulation of potential data. when john poindexter talked about a program about total informational awareness, i condemned it publicly. i was a person who put into the official report to the congress on the question of terrorism, homeland security, that the preservation of our civil freedoms was the entire game in the post-9/11 world. as governor, i even vetoed a red light bill to make sure that people were not being watched on their own streets. the question. the question here is edward snowden. this is edward snowden. this is a picture of the new york post with edward snowden on the front cover.
edward snowden is a traitor. edward snowden is a traitor and a coward. edward snowdent betrayed his trust. the people of the united states navy edward snowden the position have access to confidential information. they gave him a special high clearance which he then violated. he hid the fact that he was doing these things and there are some allegations that he obtained this information through trickery. when the time came for him to flee as a coward would, he told his superior that he was going to go to the mainland for some kind of medical treatment when interacting with the opposite way and went to hong kong where he then proceeded to expose this information if not the press, to the chinese. at later time he goes off to russia and want to make common cause with this stalinist thug
who today is doing something right now that is not acceptable in the ukraine. the definition of treason is someone who makes common cause with our enemies, someone who gives aid and comfort to our enemies. and the fact is that edward snowden does that, remains doing it to this day. he is a traitor. the shopper to the a is convictions, someone who is prepares -- prepared to face the music, and make his case. then see what the jury says. they could acquit him, or a judge could take these concerns that bruce has expressed into consideration. the law must be upheld. particularly, to someone who has had this kind of trust. before i get back to you, i want to hear from charlie because he comes from a younger generation.
you have heard two polar descriptions of edward snowden. what do kids in your generation view edward snowden as? >> he will be speaking by the sxsw conference in austin, texas, i weigh us type. think people look at him as a traitor, but as to what he revealed. every single tweet, every single text message is being stored and analyzed. we are in a culture where what you believe is being used against you, that should worry every single person in this room. every single person. >> all right. traitor, would you defend him and how would you defend him? >> the government has not
charged him with treason. they have accused him of violations, which i believe when a citizen exposes government wrongdoing like violations of the constitution, it would be unconstitutional to make that a crime. he did not have an adjudication of that because mr. snowden has not been formally indicted by grand jury, but i want the audience to know the federal government has not accused him of treason. secondly, with regard to the rule of law, let's examine exactly the circumstances in which mr. snowden made his revelations. the senate intelligence committee and the house for years had known of this secret surveillance program that is now brought forth through mr. snowden's abilities. a lawsuit brought against by senator rand paul, because we know. the nsa intended to make this program secret forever.
in march come up over the revelations of last year, before the senate and halogen's committee, the director of national intelligence james clapper was asked by senator ron white, are you collecting data on millions of americans? moreover, senator wyden had issued that question 24 hours in advance so he could deliver it on it. mr. clapper answered no. clearly p-- a erjurious statement. you are talking about the rule of law? in a democracy the people have a right to know what their government is doing, because we get to decide what the policy is going to be. revelations snowden came forth, the american people have forced changes from what oing on aas d
because of mr. snowden's revelations. this it cannot not be found without the revelations because before that because of speculations, it would have been thrown out of court. you're just guessing that the government is doing this to you. he needed a rule of law function which was nonfunctioning before that time. i wanted to say about all the members of the senate intelligence committee who did not have the courage to do what a 29-year-old had to do for them. and it is especially outrageous -- they had come as you point out, a duty to uphold and defend the constitution, including the fourth amendment, which they were not doing. in addition, unlike mr. snowden, they enjoyed the debate cause of article four section six, which indicates an established to document that any member of congress can't disclose anything free from worry of executive retaliation. articles ofad 47
the pentagon papers into the record. they said that was off-limits. the constitution gives this community to embolden figures congressional oversight, and that was the default position. i underscore that if it were not for edward snowden we would not be having this this conversation. this is the inner work of what democracy is about. gilmore, bruce said earlier there has not been a scene goal attack stopped by the program. do you know of anything that you are aware of where we stop an attack because of the gathering of this information? \ >> let me say i did not say he was charged with treason. i was saying he should be charged with treason. as far as the espionage act goes, that is a direct violation of the espionage.
haveaul said he should amnesty. rand paul said he should have a life sentence. this is wrongheaded. we should underscore the rule of law and the obligations and trust we put in people who have security clearances. so the question of -- that bruce has raised, the question of whether or not this kind of problem justifies all of this or you, i haveto tell been the governor during the 9/11 attack. inave been in the pentagon, the smoking holes of the pentagon. when i was there i looked around at all the rubble and said this is a terrible thing. there were people here, and he said, you are within 30 people of peoples pieces who are underneath all this rubble here right now. over the past 10 years, since that time, we have seen a very serious problem of the growth of the attacks on this country and the potential dangers to this country, the sycophants of
people who can do a cyber attack, who can do an explosion to intimidate our civil activities like in boston. the dangers are significant, and i have to tell you there will be another attack on the united states. there simply will be. i agree here -- our idea here is to prepare this country and protect it to the extent it can come consistent with civil freedoms. we are americans. we do not have to trade this off. we can do both. we can preserve the civil freedoms of the american people, and that has to be our goal and objective. >> i want to get the charlie first. you are the first generation who grew up with facebook and twitter. is your generation reconciled to the fact that when they get up in the morning the government will be collecting their phone records as part of being an american in the 21st century? >> hardly. people asked, why do people care about the nsa?
are they ok with it? the way i answer that, young their twitter on accounts. there's a fine line between what you tweet, posts, and the public and what is behind a closed sale. there is a secrecy lined the government has crossed, especially for the younger generation. there's information we hold on these accounts, whether it be twitter, or personal iphone, that the government has overreached, taken, catalog, and hopefully it will not be used against us in the future. opportunity for conservative activists to engage young people in this conversation. it is much more of a natural fit for the limited government advocates. when barack obama said the nsa is a problem, i will make all these changes, 10 minutes later he said go sign up for healthcare.gov. he said i will rein in the an in the nsa.
yes, privacy matters a lot. otherwise, why would we be doing all the stuff we are doing? for an the tables for you second. you defend what edward snowden did. if i told you i talked to several intelligence officers, he said that the methods they were using, unrelated to what the nsa was doing, is hard by revelations he was making. how do you respond to that charge, and should he have used poor judgment in what he released? >> before i answer that, i need to go back to governor gilmore's statement. he he the more rampant lawlessness which is government violating the rule of law, which he seems to be indifferent about. he did not say at all that james clapper should be indicted for lying to the american people. total silence. what about the rampant unconstitutional actions of --
i wantto complete my -- to respond, because that is one of several. we have a president who claims and has used the authority on two occasions to kill any american citizen that he unilaterally decides in secret is a danger. that is due process of law? n sendingds like puti poisons to london. there is no due process server. the surveillance program is another example. he decides he does not want to faithfully execute the law? laways i do not like the against immigration. i will not enforce those. he does not like the laws against marijuana. i will not enforce those. all of these examples of government lawlessness, total silence on governor gilmore's part, and one the government because a lawbreaker, it invites every man and woman to become a law unto themselves. >> governor, no more silence.
can you answer? >> bruce, i have been on the front lines of this battle. i have been an intelligence agent during the cold war in germany. i had the secret clearances. i had the opportunity to work up a half of my country. i was a governor during the 9/11 attack. i resent your implication. maybe i do not have any interest in the civil freedoms of this country. the answer is that we need to have proper oversight. we need to have proper laws. if you are going to misuse the data that they need to be prosecuted. there needs to be proper oversight by the congress. we need to have this kind of things. to dismantle the defense of this nation in a time of maximum wager to this country is not responsible for it here is what they are doing. opportunity, they had the opportunity to take this data and target a person that
they know from other sources, human intelligence or other communications intelligence, that the person is a potential danger to this country. overseas. and then they are in a position to find out who that person is talking to in this country. and they also have an opportunity to see who that person is talking to and to develop investigatory techniques against the possibility of attacks in this country. the fact is that the enemy may not yet be successful in building people in this country that can attack this country, but they would aspire to do that. they would like to do that. it is our responsibility to make sure that our authorities are enabled to do their job with consistency with the law. we can do both of these thig ngs. edward snowden, by revealing that kind of information, has substantially weakened this country against the direct and knees -- direct enemies of this country. of the direct violation
laws of espionage of this country. prickly, he ought to come back and not be a coward and hang around in russia with people who are not really in favor of the success of this country. he should return to this country and make his case before a jury of his peers. people have done civil disobedience for years, and many years in this country. did civilher king disobedient. they come back and they face the music and a face the justice and they make their case not only to the court, but to the people. edward snowden has not done that, and that is why he is not only a traitor in my judgment, he is also a coward. >> we got to wrap this up. of hands ina show the room. who thinks they are safer here today because of the data the nsa has collected? show of hands. governor, this is one of your
hometown crowds. has something changed? do we need to bring dick cheney backup here? >> the key difference is that there's a tendency here, and bruce is guilty of this of trying to make this black and white. it is a mistake for the mac and to believe that in order to be protect you of our civil freedoms and our freedoms as americans we must sacrifice the security of this nation. that is not true. i tell you there is danger ahead. substantial danger that is coming. the fact is that we have to put ourselves in a position where we can defend ourselves, consistent with the law and consistent with the values of our nation. we can do these things. we are americans. we can do both. you do not have to rely upon a man who takes it upon himself to make the decisions, that maybe he is smarter than anybody else and he has the ability to betray his trust, but rate the security clearances, lie to his superiors, go to foreign countries, and betray the
station. that is not consistent with our -- >> i think you have the facts upside down. >> i want to hear what he has to say. an unfortunated realistic reality, and there is a difference between a traitor to our country and a traitor to what they call an enemy of the administration. let's think about this. i want to add an element. is ted cruz viewed as an enemy right now to many people? patriots all across the country are being targeted by the irs and i want to reinforce this, because of their police. there are congressional hearings because of that. in the same sentence are we going to say it is ok that we can spy on other enemies? is the enemy being redefined right now by this government? hesitation was a conservatives are under attack, and me to understand that it sounds really good, with all possible due respect, that we are going to
target our enemies, foreign and domestic, and prevent terrorism, but in a culture where what you believe in is under attack, especially by this administration with a very -- we need to be very careful using that rhetoric. >> what governor gilmore does not understand is that the fourth amendment stands for the risks issue that we test -- we take risks that other countries do not take. thomas and jefferson went government fears the people, yet liberty. when people for the government, you have attorney. that is what it means to be an american. object in the republic for the people to center the government, the government does not center the people, and as regards who speaks for the american people? it was the intelligence committee who said the american people are too stupid to know what safety measures are required. that is why we cannot tell them what we're doing out there. when edward snowden revealed what was going on from the american people rally behind his concept of of what the law
means, not the intelligence community and mr. gilmore's. john, i have, been a trial defense lawyer. i have made motions of the fourth amendment which i have won behalf of clients. i have been an elected prosecutor. i have been the attorney general of virginia. i think i understand better than any body with the fourth amendment is about and how it works. lie"? i do not think so. the fact is -- the free congress foundation, and we have a progress and with -- for graham and which we address these issues. we circulated a letter, charlie. we were the ones that circulated the letter in the foundation that complained about the internal revenue service targeting existing conservative organizations.
we have taken the lead on these issues. you are not wrong. you're just not informed about what we are doing. but the fact is this, and this is very important -- this is very important. you cannot disarm this country at a time of maximum challenge to this nation. the fact is we have dual challenge in this country. we have people who are nationstates who are operating against us with very sophisticated intelligence services. we also have people that are not connected to any state at all, like al qaeda, who are working very hard to create the undermining of our nation. under the new battles that are going on in fourth generation warfare in the 21st century, you can attack the economy of this country, and civilians, and try faith inine people's democracy. that is the confrontation that is ahead of us. we as conservatives have an obligation to make sure that we do both of these things.
and that we do not set one against the other. we do not set the freedoms of the nations against the security of this nation. that is not the direction in which we must go. we have to do both and that has been my record. that is the record of the free congress foundation and american opportunity, and that is what we must do. >> >> you can see the passion this serves in the crowd. 1993.tory goes back to it turns out they had a human asset directly attached to osama bin laden and finding out very early on that he intended to finance. we rely on technology today. are you worried we do not do enough of the old-fashioned intelligence? human intelligence? increasehas been this in trying to use supercomputers and teno