tv Washington This Week CSPAN March 15, 2014 11:00pm-1:01am EDT
next, a ronald reagan symposium marking the 50th anniversary of the speech where he endorsed barry goldwater for president. senators john mccain and others hold a news conference in ukraine. c-span. putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events commas and briefings. offering complete gavel-to-gavel covering of the u.s. house. we are c-span. created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you service provider.
like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. regent anniversary held its annual ronald reagan symposium. it is titled a time for choosing. viceered on behalf of of presidential candidate barry goldwater, it is recognized as having set the stage for the white house. we will begin by a portion of the speech, followed by a panel discussion. this is about one hour and 15 minutes. >> those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have it a utopian solution of peace without victory. they call their accommodation and say that if we avoid dry confrontation with the enemy, he will lose his evil ways and say he loves us. all who indict them say are war mongers.
there is a simple answer, not easy, but simple. if you are and i have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy aced on what we know in our hearts is morally right, we cannot abide our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by creating in immorality so great, of saying to one billion people of able and slave behind the iron curtain, give up your freedom because in order to save our own skins, we will make a deal with your masters. let's set the record straight. there is no argument over the choice between peace and war but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace and you can have it in the next surrender. there is a risk in any course we follow other than this but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement and this is the specter are well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face, the fair
policy of accommodation is with appeasement and it gives no you are choice between peace and war. you only between fight and surrender. if we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand, the ultimatum, and what then? nikita khrushchev has told his people that he knows what our answer will be. he has said that we will be retreating under the pressure of the cold war and someday our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, and economically. he believes that from our side he has heard voices leading for peace at any price or as one commentator put it, he had rather live on his knees than die on his feet. therein lies the road to war. those voices do not speak for us. you and i know what and we do
not believe that life is so dear that it is to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. when did this begin? in the face of this enemy, or should moses have told his people to live under the pharaoh? should patriots have refused to fire the shot heard round the world? our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the nazis did not die in vain. where is the road to peace? it is a simple answer -- you and i have the courage to say to our enemies, there is a price we will not pay. there is a point by which they must not advance. [applause]
this is the meaning in the phrase of every goldwater, peace through strength. winston churchill said the destiny of man is not measured by material computation spared when forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits, not animals, and he said there is something going on in time and space and beyond that which the weather we like it or not, stems duty. you and i have a rendezvous with destiny. we will deserve for our children the last, best hope of man on earth are we will sentence him to take the last step into 1000 years of darkness. we'll remember that barry goldwater has faith in us. he has faith that you and i have the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny. thank you very much. [applause]
>> that was some of ronald reagan's speech from 1964. now the symposium on the speech. this is one hour and 10 minutes. >> our first speaker is amity shlaes. she is chairman at the calvin coolidge moral foundation, a fairly new posting for her. she's a syndicated columnist for forbes and her recent books have one numerous accolades and she is a recipient of the manhattan institute's prestigious hyatt award. we were colleagues at the bush institute, for george w. bush, and importantly to me, and this may be more than she wanted to say, but "the forgotten man" is one of the most important books that anyone alive can read about the depression and for understanding the practicality of understanding economic theory. she has just told me that it is
going to become a graphic novel and i think this is terribly important. if dante can be put into a graphic novel, surely "the forgotten man" can. that is only because it teaches so much today in this culture. we welcome her. next is darren guerra. he is a professor at biola university. finally, ryan t. anderson. his greatest claim to fame is the speaker at a university a year ago. he is a fellow at the heritage foundation and serves as editor of public discourse at a journal of its at princeton. please welcome our panelist. [applause]
>> good morning. thank you very much for that introduction. it is quite exciting for me to be here to the memory this reagan anniversary birthday and the anniversary of "a time for choosing" speech. politicians to come to one hour when they are ready to take a stand and ask the country to take the stand with them. in his case, a lot of action flows from that standard. when you look at the arc of his career, you can know that an action that he took years later, the dismissal of the air traffic controllers during the
presidency, flowed out of that speech. if you go back and listen, you will hear him speaking of the socialist labour party in britain. he had an understanding that socialism can be against the individual that lead right up to that decision. it is almost embedded in the speech. i have been working not on president 40, but president 30, calvin coolidge. we hope you'll visit his birthplace in plymouth notch, vermont. i will speak sacrilege and blasphemy and say in some ways, coolidge was even better than reagan. what way could that be? when coolidge left office, the a federal government was actually smaller than when he came into the presidency. you want to think about that. i see them as augmenting one
another. reagan much appreciated coolidge. i see them as together. in researching coolidge, i also found -- and this is what i will speak about -- that he had a time for choosing. there were some differences. when reagan shows in the early 60's, he chose to leave the democratic party and go to the republican. coolidge's choice was different. he chose to go from the progressive wing of the republican party to the traditional or conservative wing. it was in both cases a big choice. you may know the line that coolidge spoke around the time he made this choice in 1919. he was speaking about public-sector workers and he said, there is no right to strike against the public safety by anyone, anywhere, anytime. very similar situation.
in addition, the similarities of these two speeches and events, coolidge in 1919, reagan in 1964, was action by public-sector unions in both of their cases. the speeches they made elevated the men national status. reagan would not have been president but for 1964 and coolidge were not have been president for 1919. just very briefly, i would like to talk about realizations that coolidge had and reagan had that are similar that got them to the point where they said, it is a time for choosing for me and for the country. i am very grateful for this time. this is what i identified in my work. the first realization that enabled coolidge to do this, and reagan, as that this is a fragile place. your member reagan -- you
remember reagan talking about a cuban refugee who had wanted to escape from cuba. the refugee pointed out it was not just escaping. it was the luck of having a country to escape to. if we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to, as reagan explained. this is the last stand on earth. coolidge experienced eight epiphany -- an epiphany about the united states. he was born in vermont and moved all the way to massachusetts, which is not that far. he spent a whole political career there in state politics. domestic works, never went to
europe. the farthest place he had been to was canada. then as a state official and finally governor of massachusetts, he experienced the end of world war i with the soldiers returning. they returned on ships into boston harbor and as a politician, a leading republican and authority in massachusetts, he would go out in the harbor to shine a light even before the morning light came up with a megaphone to welcome the troops coming back in their ships. i think it was at that point that coolidge realized how special america was. he wrote of these returning american soldiers when they were unspeakably pleased beyond all expression to be back home in their own country, this country, not just any country.
coolidge saw that if the beacon of america is turned off, shut out, the world becomes dark. that was related to the motto of his colleague. let them illuminate the earth. america had to be safe to illuminate the rest. he understood that very well. the second thing reagan and coolidge have in common is their economic learning curve as politicians. reagan started out something of a progressive, a democrat, but he looked at the economy to realize that government intervention would not be particularly productive. by 1964, you hear reagan deploring intervention in agriculture. we have no better example than the government's intervention in the farm economy. you can hear the irritation in his voice. coolidge similarly started out pro-intervention. he came from a farming community and not an easy farming
community. his father had a cheese factory. it is an exercise and economic desperation. if there is no refrigeration to keep your milk cool and no train to take your goods away rapidly, you try to preserve your protein in some way to make it less perishable. where coolidge came from was very fragile, but over time coolidge saw that federal support for agriculture could not help. unlike reagan, coolidge had a lot of pauses in his speeches and there is a famous interaction. you hear about him as president, when he is questioned to support agriculture subsidy, and i will pretend i'm coolidge and play him. imagine them asking for money
and "well, farmers never have made much money. i don't suppose they ever will. don't suppose there is much we can do about it." he came to that realization as reagan did. it is also about public-sector unions. reagan was a union guy. after a while he saw that unions can be thuggish. coolidge as a young man was a progressive. he worked intensely to negotiate with employers in massachusetts. he came to see that
public-sector unions could be thugs and they did not help the individual, though they might help a named group. when you want to ask, what it is about the public sector unions, it is about they pretend to represent all but only represent some. that bothered them both. coolidge said that it would appear that our problem of economic justice in massachusetts is not quite so simple assuming we can take from one class and give to another. there it is. i am concerned. the catalyst for coolidge's choice was a dramatic situation in 1919. he was governor of massachusetts and by an anomaly of the law there the boston police reported to someone who reported to the governor. the policemen were getting ready to protest. they had a very compelling -- by the way, this is not an easy situation.
the police were almost all irish. coolidge loved the irish and they voted for him in great numbers. they were his constituents. they were poor, they were underpaid, there were rats chewing on their helmets in their station houses, and you want to imagine very lovable people, these policemen. they were mounted policeman and as in the clydesdales commercials, their horses whinnied after them on the street they loved them so much. they put in a lot of service. there were articles in the newspaper and they felt they had public sympathy on their side and they abandon their posts and went on strike. as lovable as they were, this is a hurt boston. there was death, looting, and coolidge through his chain of command, did fire the policemen.
that was his signaling to the world that he was no longer a progressive. he said that line -- there is no right to strike against public safety by anyone, anywhere, anytime. that was the line in the sand, the line that rang around the world. it became an american model. there were fewer public-sector strikes after that. what do we say to conclude about these times for choosing? i think that these were incredibly brave. reagan did not know what effect you would have with his speech. he said, i don't know if i helped goldwater afterward. it was very strong. i hope i did not let him down. coolidge, after firing the police, he thought he might've thrown away his entire political career. you can see it in a letter to his father. his father was going to come down to a convention around that time from vermont. his father did not like to come but coolidge said, you had better come down to this
convention. i am sure you will like it and there may never be a convention again where i'm governor. he did not expect necessarily to be reelected that often. coolidge used short words. "this was a service that had to be done and i have been glad to do it. the results won't matter to me but it will matter a great deal to the rest of america." that last quote highlights a final similarity between the presidents. for men or women of character, after a point, you have to say something. however difficult, which is what we admire in reagan and coolidge and other figures and i think i will close with that. it is a paradox. when it comes to a time for
choosing for people of character, there is no choice. it must be given. thank you very much. [applause] >> greetings from california. the land of reagan, believe it or not. the last 20 years in politics in california is hard to believe that reagan was governor there at one time. thank you. it is a wonderful privilege to be here celebrating ronald reagan and the 50th anniversary of his speech. i have long admired the signature events at regent university. it is wonderful to be a part of it. my remarks today are entitled "preserving our constitution." i will briefly sketch the threat that reagan saw to the constitution during his presidency and the ways that he
thought of to preserve the vital document. i think it is appropriate, given his career, that i frame my remarks by drawing on a scene from the scene "mr. smith goes to washington." the late great jimmy stewart's character, jefferson smith, ed come to washington full of national pride and wonder and yet in a short time, he has been framed and scandalized by the forces of washington corruption. he is about to be banished from the u.s. senate. it's in a pivotal scene, he stands with his suitcase in hand, literally sobbing in the shadow of the statue of abraham lincoln. he is implored to resist the forces of corruption. she says the following -- your friend, mr. lincoln, had his enemies.
so did every other man who try to lift his thoughts up off the ground. odds against them did not stop them. they were fools that way. all the good that ever came into the world came from. faith like that. they're not all tailored in washington. that kind just throw big shadows. you do not have faith in any other living man. you had faith in something other than that. you had decent, everyday, common rightness and the country can use that. you said mr. lincoln was sitting up there waiting for someone to come along. you're right. he was waiting for men to see his job and sailing to and that was what he was waiting for. i think he was waiting for you. he knows you can do it and so do i. i suppose i could've retitled my speech "mr. reagan goes to washington," because i would argue he was a real mr. smith. when he was elected in 1980, our country was waiting for a man to see his job and sailing to it, a
man with a decent, everyday, rightness who was not afraid to stand up to the forces of evil or corruption or even left this confusion. forces that can seem overwhelming but reagan knew that they do not define america or washington. he knew that that kind just through a big shadow. reportedly, reagan described washington as an island surrounded by a sea of reality. reagan believed in the ideas and principles of the american founding and brought common sense and decency to the office. why did reagan need to preserve the constitution? the threat was a federal judiciary that had aggressively expanded its role in the system and the threat conditions -- continues today. the outcome saw by leftist interest groups that has been denied to the legislative process were instead pursued through litigation. lawsuits in federal courts had been become a method of becoming in and around among --
end-around among the legislature. it was devaluating the authority of the constitution and the authority of the people. the courts had abandoned their traditional role as all works to the constitution and were serving to undermine the document they were sworn to protect. in his speech, reagan does not mention the court specifically but he clearly addresses the core problem. early in the speech, he sets the stage for the vital choice facing americans when he says, this is the issue of this election, whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the american revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us are better
than we can plan them ourselves. by the time he became president, it becomes clear that this intellectual elite took the form of non-elected judges with life tenure. why does this legal elite avoid the constraints of the constitution? reagan addresses this at the five-minute mark of the speech. senator fulbright has says the constitution is outmoded. he referred to the president as our moral teacher and leader and he says he is humbled in his past ash hobbled in his tasks by the restrictions imposed upon him by this antiquated document. he must be freed so he can do for us what he knows is best. outmoded? reagan could not disagree more. the comments are reflective of a long-held progressive believe that the constitution is too rigid and ultimately undemocratic. for progressives, the constitution is an unnecessary restraint on progress. progress is -- neither the public nor leaders are accountable to anything or anyone beyond themselves. for true progressives, truth is
the majority vote of the nation that can lick all others. at its core, the theory rejects timeless and fixed natural rights articulated in the declaration of independence. the notion of the constitution being an impediment to progress is not new. as early as 1914, it was described as an imposition on the people. another point, he referred to it as an as a monarchy of words. woodrow wilson argued that a charismatic president can help overcome the impediments of the constitution's rigid separation of powers. another has called our constitution imbecilic. it is in this.
that we see the birth of an aggressive court using its power to advance liberal agenda when it could not garner popular support in the legislature. at the time of the remarks, it had been 30 years since fdr's revolution. this activist court behavior had become legal orthodoxy. as justice scalia has pointed out, this type of living constitutionalism, if unchecked, will ultimately destroy the constitution in his words. fulbright sees the constitution as an impediment to charismatic leadership, but reagan sees it as reserving a natural rights. how did he act to preserve the constitution? first, in his presidential rhetoric, he stressed the importance of restraining federal courts and restoring original meaning to the text of the constitution as a binding force on the judiciary. he knew of the constitution ignored or alternate venues, but
in no real sense was of the constitution of any authority. in 1988, he identified the problem. too many justices are taking upon themselves the prerogatives of elected officials instead of interpreting the law according to the intent of the constitution. they were using this to strike down laws. i would argue them to interpret the law and not make it. the people make the laws and the people deserve to have those laws enforced as they were written. there are many examples of reagan making comments like this. in some, he used rhetoric to affirm the proper role of the him and courts. in doing so, he educated the public and signaled to opponents of the game was up. the second thing he did was to and appoint attorney general's who would carry out judicial philosophy. his first attorney general did well, but it was his second term when he played offense instead
of defense. he became the head of the spear when it came to engaging the legal world. in a legendary speech in july of 1985, he fired a shot across the bow of the complacent liberal legal establishment. in his address, he said the following -- the intended role of the judiciary is to serve as a bulwark of a limited constitution as a faithful guardian of the constitution. this is expected to resist political documents in the original tensions of those who framed it. while he was speaking legal heresy in the church of the living constitution, few had an challenged them in 50 years, let alone the attorney general. and he reengaged the serious battle of ideas over judicial philosophy. he also took the battle to the law schools themselves and was instrumental in starting the federalist society in 1982 which has provided leadership the
highest levels ever since. reagan institutionalized his -- he has appointed more judges in the federal courts than any is president in history. a he appointed 384. clinton was behind him at 379. the combination of numbers and youth was not enough. reagan knew that he must have judges that shared his views and on the role of the court and philosophy and the administration instituted a process for their judges. reagan was successful at shaping
the federal judiciary. even at the time, liberal opponents lamented his effectiveness. a liberal columnist complained that his appointment are remaking the judiciary today is much as fdr did and they threaten to rewrite almost half a century of progressive work. in his book, reagan made political -- he never accepted the legal rationale for roe v wade and he saw it as -- it was an affront to the original meaning of to the constitution and it embodied all that was wrong with the courts. in his book, he compared roe v wade to the dred scott decision in the 1850's. in a in doing so, he drew conclusions about abortion as lincoln did with slavery. when done under the color of
him law, it threatens to undermine is our principles. when the court protects the right of the strong to dismember the weak, it devalues the very name of human freedom. like slavery, abortion shifts away the fundamental principle of political equality. he quoted abraham lincoln. i would like to know if -- where will it stop? if one man says it will not mean an african slave, why would one man say it does not mean another man? similarly, if we can exclude an unborn baby from the principal, why not another human being? if the law endorses the power to
destroy in an arbitrary fashion, and the legal notion that might makes right does not span constitutional law but it may undermine the fabric of our social order and it still does. reagan in word and deed sought to redirect us. one can imagine reagan speaking the same words spoken by jimmy stewart in the filibuster scene. "just get up off the ground, that is all i ask, and you'll see a whole parade of what man has carved out for himself after fighting for better than jungle law, fighting to stand free and
great principles do not get lost once they come to light. they are here. you have to see them." reagan believed that great principles do not get lost. they do not get lost provided that we as citizens nourish a that we as citizens nourish those principles in our homes and schools and provided our leaders rally americans to the truth and power of those ideals. i think this is where we can find hope going forth for our country, even in these dark days. a time that is not too dissimilar to the landscape that reagan found in 1964. as special as reagan was as a man and leader, much of what he did was to point the american people to the better angles of the nature and to our heritage of its founding and our principles. what we need is not another reagan, because there will never be another reagan, but we need
is a leader with courage to advocate for those with principles and word and deed. when one approaches, the citizenry needs the wisdom to choose. he reminded us that it is a time for choosing. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. the more things change, the more they stay the same. it is amazing to see just how much things have not changed. reagan expresses concern that government taxes too much of our income, that government spends more than raises, that government is transforming into a welfare state and trapping of the poor, that government debt is skyrocketing, and the debt is held by foreign interests overseas, and we have enemies abroad that reject the moral and abroad that reject the moral foundations of our political order.
sound familiar? the more things change, the more they stay the same. in him or do they? other speakers will focus on how similar our challenges and opportunities are to those of 50 years ago. i want to focus elsewhere. in the time i have, i want to point to three broad areas of concern that were not mentioned in reagan's original "time for choosing." today, these issues create a new time for choosing great while his speech was about a time for choosing about politics, the new one is about politics and culture. reagan did not specifically address the type of culture that allows for our experiment in self-government to be a success. it was not under serious attack at the time. everyone recognize the importance of the institution of marriage, the dignity of unborn children, and the significance of religious freedom. over the past 50 years, each of
these has come under sustained attack. if we are to -- here we go. if we are to sustain the choice of freedom that reagan taught us to half a century ago, today we must decide to have a culture that makes freedom possible. we have reached a new time for choosing great he appealed to the american revolution and bemoans the fact that our natural rights appear to be a dispensation of government and freedom has never been so fragile. america exists to defend the rights of the declaration of the independence. we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal. and in him these truths have been challenged in the past years in ways that reagan could not have imagined in 1964. because they were not the challenge of his day, you will
find no discussion of the right to life, or religious liberty, or marriage in reagan's text. unless they are protected in law and more importantly lured out in culture, constitutional self-government will be impossible. the right to life is not only for the strong and powerful, the rich and famous. but it is for all human beings, including the week, marginalize, and infirm, wanted or unwanted, born or unborn. redefining who is included is exactly what reagan rejected. it considers rights to be a dispensation of government. it is not surprising that reagan does not mention abortion for in 1964, no one seriously thought that the right to choose was a real constitutional right. nor that it could trump the natural right to life. it was not until 1965 that the supreme court would create a constitutional right to privacy and it was not until 1973 that the court extended that right to
abortion. it is a ruling that many liberals decry as having no basis in the constitution. public opinion and legislation and prior to roe were strongly supportive of laws protecting unborn children. in 1963 abortion activist alan -- admitted that any change in abortion law that suggested the non-humanity of the unborn child was "going to be voted down by the body politic." he was right. in 1967, arizona, georgia, new york, new mexico, and nebraska all rejected liberalizing abortion laws. in 1969, the same thing happened in iowa, minnesota, nevada, and illinois. in 1970, it happened in vermont and massachusetts. in 1971, 12 different states the defeated laws. there were some states that did
liberalize their laws, though none went as far as roe. unfortunately, one of those states was california. its governor was ronald reagan. in june of 1967, reagan signed the log reluctantly, thinking the democrat majority would override a potential veto. he tried to make the law as harmless as possible, limiting the cases of justified abortion to rate,, and the health of the mother. the bill was titled the therapeutic abortion act and reagan was sadly learned the doctors were willing to call just about any abortion therapeutic. he regretted the decision. what he learned from his decision in california prompted him to champion his pro-life cause in the white house. reagan is the only sitting president to have published a book in office, a book promoting the culture of life.
reagan pledged that his administration would champion the pro-life cause because his administration was dedicated "to the preservation of america as a free land and there is no cause more important than preserving that freedom then asserting the transcendent right to life to all human beings, the right without no other rights have any meaning." reagan had learned that if the government could redefine who the natural rights bearer, writes for a dispensation of government. the basic right to life forces on us a new time for choosing. the declaration speaks of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. next up is liberty. reagan spoke at great length about economic liberty but he never mentioned the first right protected in the bill of rights -- the free exercise of religion. maybe that is because in 1964, more or less everyone could
agree that it deserved protection. there was no need to single it out for mention because it was not threatened. there are interesting cases, some disturbing, around this time dealing with school prayer and nativity scenes and 10 commandment displays and public reimbursement of catholic schools. very few dealt with the exercise of religion. the court ruled the year before that a seventh-day adventist could not be denied conversation because she refused to work on a saturday. the court determined 10 years asthe court determined 10 years later that homage father did not have to send his children to high school. these are parts of larger trends are taking liberty. the government ruled that they could not force children to salute the flag or recite the budget.... today, the government claims it can force governments and individuals to play for health coverage of an abortion-inducing drug. they have shut down christian adoption agencies that want to find homes for orphans with married moms and dads.
reagan could hardly be faulted for not seeing this great threat is to liberty. it comes as a shock to many americans even today, as it should. the right to liberty takes on particular importance when dealing with the most important and sacred of things. you are and sacred of things. citizens and the businesses that they run should be free to act in the public square according to their belief. as michelle obama put it, religious faith is not just about showing up on sunday for a good sermon and good is again a good meal. it is about what we do monday through saturday as well. yet, we see the obama administration redefining religious liberty to the freedom of worship, pious activity
restricted to a chapel. how about the pursuit of happiness? it is normally protected by allowing autonomous adults to act without government interference. much of reagan's speech was an argument for saving that freedom. the system of natural liberty works well when civil society a strong and does what it is supposed to do. at the heart of civil society, is the family. the government protects non-autonomous children by protecting the truth about marriage so that any children the union produces has access to love and care of their mother and father. it is not surprising that reagan mentioned marriage only once in his speech. marriage rates in the 1960's were robust. already, reagan could see that government policy was undermining marriage. he said, not long ago, a judge called me here in los angeles. he told me of a young woman who had come before him for a divorce.
she had six children and was pregnant with her seven. under his questioning, she revealed that her husband was a labor earning $250 a month. she wanted a divorce to get an $80 raise. she is eligible for $330 a month in the aid to dependent children program. she got the idea from women in her neighborhood who it the same. marriage penalties and public policy, the more things change, the more they stay the same. our welfare system today includes penalties for marriage, as does obamacare. government will give you more stuff if you are not married. in providing such a perverse incentive, the government reinforces behavior that traps people in poverty in the first place. it is not surprising that apart from that one mention of marriage -- that, one mention of marriage never surfaces.
as but the 1940's, 1950's, and 60's, births to unwed mothers were in the single digits. today, it is 40% for all children, 50% for hispanics, and 70% of blacks are born outside of marriage. this breakdown of marriage most hurts the least well-off. a leading indicator if someone knows poverty or prosperity is whether growing up, he or she has the love and security of having a mother and father. it reduces the chance of child poverty by 80%. recognition of marriage does so less cost than picking up the pieces of a shattered marriage culture. imaging the size of government is impossible without a size -- when the family disintegrates, social well for programs multiply. as they grow, society is further weakened.
1964 is an important date as the year that president johnson launched the war on poverty. 50 years later, poverty have now moved much -- have not moved much. but welfare spending has increased 16 fold. the government spends almost $1 trillion every year on means tested welfare. it is not the only way the government has weakened marriage. in him and him and him one could look at the various sex-focused programs in our schools. consider how government
redefined marriage a generation and a ago and again, reagan plays a leading role. california was the first to adopt no-fault divorce. marriage has a legal presumption of permanence. him marriage has a legal presumption of permanence. under common law, one had to cite a serious reason for filing for divorce, abuse, abandonment, and adultery.
with no-fault divorce, one could cast away a spouse for any reason. in the 1980's, the majority of states adopted it and the divorce rate roughly doubled during that time. not all the increase of divorces is a result of the law, but the law taught culture. culture shapes belief, and the lease shaped action. in effect, it had redefined marriage and today, onto google and reagan's time, there are those who would redefine marriage to illuminate the norm of sexual complementarity. to make the union just about consenting adult love of whatever size or shape. the state's interest in marriage is not that it cares about my love life or your love life just for the sake of romance. the state's interest in marriage is ensuring that kids have fathers who were involved in their life. when that doesn't happen, social costs rise. crime rises, social mobility decreases, and welfare spending explodes. if you care about social justice and limited government, you should care about freedom and the poor, and you have to care about marriage. it fundamentally reorients the institution away from the needs of children and towards the desires of adults. it does not make marriage about
ensuring the type of family that is a deal for kids. it makes it about adults. if the biggest social problem we face in america is absentee fathers, how will we react when the law redefines marriage? marriage remains the best protector of the rights of children to pursuit happiness. with respect to the definition of marriage, we are faced with a new time to choose. in the last minute i have left, i want to say a word about why these challenges have come about today. first, the practice has weakened and the religious authorities openly mocked. government has grown to exceed constitutional limits, and we have experienced a revolution -- not the american, but the sexual revolution. with the american revolution, religion and liberty went hand-in-hand so that thomas jefferson could declare, the guy that gave us life, it was liberty at the same time. the american revolution was not the french revolution where was declared that man would never be free until the last king is to be strangled with the entrails of the last priest. as government group thomas
limited government and the rule of law were replaced by the unlimited reach of technocrats and as government started legislating about more and administrative more, there became greater potential for infringement on religious liberty. it results in course of government power to enforce new values. one reason americans have to work to protect life, liberty, and marriage, is because other americans are working to undermine these guys and they're using the government as their if there is a culture war in america, it is not one that conservatives have picked. we must return to the sense of the american founding, ordered liberty based on faith and reason, natural rights, and relative, limited government and civil society. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, ryan.
darren, i want to give you a chance to ask questions, give you a chance to see what else you can uncover from their knowledge and their studies. i want to ask if we can do so -- i want to try and call on students and nonstudents, i want to encourage the students just as much as nonstudents formally enrolled, so to speak, to ask questions as well. if you will come all the way down to the microphone here, we
will wait for you to get there so you can get your question heard by everyone. please begin to come forward. you first. >> my name is mario. the first comment i would like to make is i would like to thank regent for these wonderful seminars they throw every year. they are fantastic. my question goes to amity shlaes. anyone who is not read her books needs to read them. they are written at a good level for the average person and they are tremendous books. i've read two. my question revolves around what ronald reagan would think of the tea party, republican national committee, and are we losing the bill of rights? in your book, it is mentioned that governor roosevelt, and running for the presidency, mentioned that there were no more borders in america to explore and to get ourselves out of the depression we would have to essentially look to the wealthy and look to redistribute wealth. if you look at a fact set from
1931 to 1994, 1 party controlled the house of representatives 95% of the time. the same party controlled the senate 84% of the time. the presidency 55% of the time. during that. , federal spending went from 10% of gdp to 40%, about $6.4 trillion. that works out to about $24,000 per capita in america. the average family would have to have a tax liability of about $96,000 to pay their fair share per capita not under a progressive system. under that fact set, have we lost the bill of rights of individual rights, not group rights, and what would ronald reagan say to the national republican party as far as recapturing the high ground and recapturing the constitution and what would he think of the tea party? >> thank you. thank you for the compliments. i hope you enjoy the illustrated version which is for adults as well as children. i hear two questions. the first is what would reagan think about the tea party? he would approve. [laughter]
[applause] the second question, very thoughtful, about the limits of redistribution, is that right? there is a limit to redistribution and when you begin to redistribute, as roosevelt said he would in that speech, even before it was his time for choosing, he said that our frontiers are done. we cannot grow a lot anymore. we reached the front years and we have got to begin to redistribute. that is a problem because there are always more frontiers, even if they are not geographic. in the old days, our children went out west to find new opportunity. now they may build real estate on the moon but they will go somewhere where there is opportunity and we need to ensure that when possible, these opportunities are within the united states. i think you're asking whether the leadership in the republican party recognizes the importance
of avoiding the redistribution of zero-sum idea and the answer is no. the party does not sufficiently recognize the importance of economic growth and focuses too much on too much on redistribution. in other words, when senator cruz gets up and says he wants to stop the health care law, the republican party is probably too prissy about that. maybe senator cruz did not say it right. [applause] maybe he is not the right messenger for the message that the health care law is wrong, but it is the right message. the health care law is more redistribution. for some reason, the gop can't embrace that and therefore hurts itself in my opinion. >> thank you. >> one quick follow-up. how would ronald reagan use the tea party, if you would, to essentially make some of these
principles known to the average person? as we probably all realize, our message is not getting out. >> very good question. i hate parodying metaphors, but when you are a teenager, you want to rebel. that energy to rebel is important to you. if you use the energy just to rebel, you don't get the change might seek. a figure, whether it is reagan or a political leader, will take the rebels and help them form that policy. the second stage of rebellion is something constructive. rebellion alone does not take you all the way. [applause] >> i am a student at rsg. i have two questions. do you think that a candidate who advocated what calvin coolidge believed in could be
elected to the presidency today? and for mr. guerra, we have been learning a lot about the concept of economic liberty and the constitution which was basically eviscerated after the roosevelt presidency. what you think we can do to recapture the concept of economic liberty within constitutional law? >> could coolidge be elected today? there is a lady here will be speaking that wrote a wonderful book about margaret thatcher. when coolidge the book came out, people asked me that. as it happened, misses thatcher sadly died in the same period.
i thought, could mrs. thatcher ever be elected? she was. what was the function that led the tory party to choose a divisive, strong character as leadership? britain was in so much trouble. it had to do something and needed someone tough to do it. coolidge could have easily been elected in the modern period. a prerequisite would be a certain amount of economic trouble. if it is nine percent, coolidge would be a serious political candidate. just not for two or three. >> in terms of economic liberty, you are right to point to the new deal era.
people do not talk about property rights. they talk about all kinds of rights, but not rights of property. clearly, there was an assault on rights of property. we are beginning to have this conversation again, beginning to discover that rights of our party are a part of this foundation for order and liberty. that conversation needs to be had more intelligently. >> good morning. this is addressed to anybody on the panel that wants to respond. given the last hundred years and where we have arrived at, are we passed the point of no return? >> i will take a first shot, and then you guys can. i hesitate to say that we are past the point of no return. i do not know the future. i think history can provide some perspective.
it's easy to look at and say, "these things were different in the past and have changed now," but even just looking at 1964, goldwater got killed, right? the politics did not look very good. ryan was pointing out some of the culture shifts. can you imagine living during the time of the civil war when americans were killing americans? we have had some pretty dark times in the country, so i am hesitant to say this is the darkest. i really do -- i try -- there's a brief line and there, but i do take solace in jimmy stewart's line from "mr. smith" the great principles are not lost if they come to light. i believe if we do redouble our efforts to articulate those principles over and over, that in time, circumstances will shift to win those principles will again be transcendent. i am hopeful. i'm not trying to whistle past
my grave, but i am hopeful. i don't know what that looks like. >> i will stick to the cultural situation in which i am somewhat pessimistic if only because the elites are so dead set against what a healthy culture would look like and what they preach but not in what they practice. there's a book called "coming apart" that looks at the stated the white family in america because the author wanted to avoid charges of racism. it was truthful ones, crime, mediocrity, religious practice, and it was marriage, and he saw that the college-educated, high school educated upper-middle-class whites more or less were living this out at the same rate they were 50 years ago, but for the lower class and the lower middle class, those who did not go to college or graduate high school, their
religious practice rates were really low and marriage rates were really low. their work habits were really poor and their crime rates were fairly high. when he noticed was that no one among the intelligentsia who were practicing these virtues were willing to preach about them. there was preaching nonjudgmental as him. then he said what holds true for the right family is true for the hispanic family is true for the black family, so it's not just an artifact of racial data mining. this is true for america at large. my fear is that we have too much non-judgmentalism, and it has trapped people in cycles of poverty. the likelihood of any of my college classmates, of the children really experiencing poverty is next to none. they are going to practice their lives in a certain way and raise their kids in a certain way. the people who are living in anacostia, a neighborhood in d.c. where over 70% of the
children grow up without fathers -- those children have done nothing wrong, but they've been dealt a very bad hand in life. it's not clear what any of the elites in america are doing to try to counteract that. [applause] >> amity, you don't want to try to brighten it up again? [laughter] i'm glad ryan brought that up because one of the elements you look at when you are a faith-based institution is exactly the kind of questions ryan raised. one of the questions i think about is not just the preaching but actively working against the only thing that will work. i am not a historian, but i do not know a time in the united states history when we had the
entirely basically be a post to everything that made for strong society and families and all that, and i don't know how you get that back. they are not suffering because of the beliefs that they have embraced. yes, sir. >> i am a student here at regent. first, i want to say i appreciate your perspective. i am also a single father. my youngest son is 17. right now, he is working his way through agnostic influence trying to find a balance between conservative they sit in doubles, the sort of things that he takes to heart, and libertarian ideas, but i have to get my son credit -- he is certain to engage in many deep
conversations, and the one thing that i believe has made a difference is god has made a spiritual difference in his life, and i'm waiting for a spiritual breakthrough for my son. the question i want to post to anyone on the panel -- we look to processes in government. for example, we look at the affordable health care act and how we put it 2100-page document out there and we were told once they pass the law, they would find out what is in it. it defeats the purpose of putting legislation through. it totally just demeans and undermines us putting through practical, commonsense, everyday guidance for the laws of the land. do you think we could ever get back to a place of putting rules in place in congress to simplify and revolve back to where they are not overlapping each other, and do you think a good place to start would be putting term limits on people in office so we can get these professional politicians out of the way and get some true heart and spirit in the office? [applause] >> take a stab, somebody. [laughter] >> the supreme court has kind of shut the door on federal term limits at this point.
sounds like we would need a constitutional amendment for that. it's not hard to believe because of the media, but the nancy pelosi line of, "let's pass this 2300-page bill so we can see what is in it" and it has taken us three or four years to figure out all the pitfalls that it's unbelievable that that has not gotten more play more widely. there is something in congress with these huge omnibus bills. the affordable care act is typical american progressivism. let's get some kind of language out there and let technocrats and administration run our lives, and that is basically the affordable care act. the democrats did not really care much for what was in it as long as there was some language for determining how to run our life and health care. our president has not shown a lot of respect for separation of
power. he modifies the affordable care act whenever he wants to buy executive order, which is a serious problem. you have heard some in congress recently talk about what we are going to do about the president just changing laws ad hoc, at will. there's not an easy answer to that given this political environment. the only real thing congress can do is something people don't want to talk about. >> anyone else yet to -- anyone else? >> hi, there. my question to the panel at large covers a cultural aspect and a policy aspects, and you are imminently qualified to speak on it. that is -- and by the way, the last question, i think the affordable health care act is the greatest gift the left could have given us because it took the disaster of the labour party in 1970's for britain for thatcher to get elected. it took the multiple disasters that culminated in the carter administration finally to get reagan elected, so it's the perfect segue to this because we have an opportunity.
my question to the distinguished panel is this -- how do we weaponize our unfair advantage of the truth, of natural law and fundamental absolutes versus the disaster and now we have empirical evidence to exploit up postmodernism and relativism? now. >> it's very interesting what a good question -- it's also about timing and a time for choosing is about timing. reagan did not give that speech in other years. a very astute politician will know the moment to give it. it was not just because it was a presidential campaign and so on. there may indeed be, sadly,
political advantage from the health care act. the winner in that situation is the one who puts forward the highly, extremely simple health care plan such as catastrophic health care insurance. one page. if the republicans counter with 2000 pages, what is the difference between them and obamacare? it has got to be a very simple program, and these are possible. they are even actuarially, mathematically possible. whoever has the courage to put that forward and stick to it, some of the late compromises about the budget were more about the commission than what the commission proffered. a plan that stands on its own without a politician. i think the preceding question over here was getting at the general bureaucratization of our
culture, and that's a problem, too, from which both parties suffer. why is it so bad? because it takes away authority of the individual to make a choice if he cannot see what he is choosing because what is offered is so complex. again, simplicity is the weapon, and, fortunately, it's a good weapon. it's the right weapon. it's a righteous weapon. >> over here. >> my name is holly. i just want to say thank you for speaking so that a 17-year-old can relate to this and understand this. my question is for mr. anderson. what should be the constitutional backing of courts to defend traditional marriage? >> i think this defaults to the states' police powers, the regulation of public safety and morals, so that when a supreme court, state judge, or second-level judge is considering whether or not a marriage amendment is
constitutional, they are not concerned with whether they agree with the marriage policy in question, but they are concerned with whether the state has the authority to make his marriage policy, if it violates some principle via the state constitution or u.s. constitution. the activist judges have been pointing to is a quality. they say somehow marriage law that we have had an america for the past 200 years violates the printable of equality, but you cannot answer the question of equality without first answering the question of what marriage is. every marriage policies will draw certain lines between what is and is not a marriage. if a couple said marriage law is denying them marriage equality because it limits marriage to throuples, you would say no because marriages are by nature monogamous. and you would say because the union of a man and woman, husband and wife, mother and father. only a man and woman can unite and that type of action that can produce new life.
every new life has one mother and one father. that means that the grounding principles for why marriage is both a union of male and female and why it is the union of only two people comes back to what marriage is and say you cannot just make a blanket appeal to the printable of equality because if it is just saying it special -- if we treat all consenting adult relationships the same, what you have now done is dissolve any category of their it's because consenting adults can come in as many different sizes and shapes as there are relationships. they can be temporary. they can be permanent. they can be two or three or four. they can be sexually close or sexually open. we actually have new words to describe all these things. there's throuples. wedleases compared to wedlock. then there's monogamish. a two person relationship that is open. the way that the state does this, non-coercively, nonintrusive way, is by promoting marriage. it does not force anyone to get married.
it does not force a man to marry a woman and take care of their kid, but they can hold it up as an ideal. the other thing i want to add to the question is i think that right now, it's also a great opportunity for making a connection between different parts of the center-right coalition. in the example of obamacare, and a lot of social conservatives are upset with you because of the hhs mandate. they say it violates social liberty. this was a great teaching moment for them to say that it's not just that because of what it's doing to the little sisters and the poor. the only reason obama care is able to do that is because it was a power grab in the first place. you are going to get the hhs mandate only when you have empowered health and human services to be issuing mandates
in the first place, so it can help to see how limited government will best protect their cultural values as well, so then for the economic conservatives, to help them see how you need to have a strong civil society so that you then do not have a bleeding heart claiming we need a government welfare program to help the poor, so this can be the teaching moment to show how economic and social conservatism is best served. we have a booth out in the lobby on how to educate your fellow citizens. [laughter] first you win the argument, then you win the vote. now is the time for teaching. >> thank you. >> the two standing, i'm so sorry. i would let you ask your questions, but dean refuses. maybe next time, you can do that. let's thank our panelists again. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] next is the united nations security council on ukraine.
in the weekly addresses by president obama and the ohio congressman. on "newsmakers" representative adam schiff on allegations that the cia search through senate computer files. the monitoring of e-mails and the latest on syria and ukraine. at 10akers" on sunday a.m. eastern and 6 p.m. eastern on c-span. council heldurity an emergency meeting on ukraine. members voted or 2-1 to approve a resolution reaffirming that ukraine's sovereignty and declaring the countries upcoming referendum in crimea on whether he should become a part of russia as invalid. russia is one of the five permanent members of the security council. in veto the resolution. china abstained.
addressed to the president of the security council. the agenda is adopted. in accordance with rule 37 of the council's provisional procedure, i invite the representative of albania, germany, austria, belgium, bulgaria, canada, cyprus, croatia, denmark, estonia, finland, georgia, greece, hungary, iceland, italy, japan, latvia, liechtenstein, malta, montenegro, norway, new zealand, the netherlands, poland, portugal, republic of moldova, czech republic, slovakia, slovenia, sweden, turkey, and
ukraine to participate in this meeting. it is so decided. the security council will now begin consideration of item two of the agenda. members of the council have before them document s-2014-189, the text of a draft resolution submitted by albania, germany, australia, austria, belgium, bulgaria, canada, cyprus, denmark, spain, estonia, the united states of america, finland, france, georgia, greece, hungary, iceland, italy, japan, latvia, liechtenstein, lithuania, moldova, norway, new zealand the netherlands, portland, portugal, czech republic, the united kingdom,
many times we have put forth in this chamber the essence of the russian position regarding the cost of developing the internal crisis in the ukraine. this is the general context that is important for understanding how we view the u.s. drafted resolution, brought to vote today. it is a secret to no one that the russian federation will vote against the resolution. we cannot go along with a basic assumption that is declaring illegal the 16 march planned referendum, where the very people of the crimean republic will determine their future. this type of philosophy from the sponsors of the draft is counter to the basic principles of international law. the principle of equal rights and self-determination.
enshrined in article one of the u.n. charter. this principle, confirmed by the u.n. declaration of 1970. a number of other decisions of the u.n. general celebrity -- assembly in 1975. we do not dispute territory of states. it is very important. it is also understandable that enjoyment of the right of self-determination and separation from an existing state is an extra ordinary measure. applied when future coexistence within a single state become some possible. moreover, the practice demonstrates the enjoyment of people with the right to self-determination. it was implemented without the agreement of a central authority. regarding crimea, this case
arose as a result of a lethal vacuum arising from an unconstitutional coup d'etat carried out in kiev by radicals, as well as from the direct threat of individuals in their order across ukraine. it should be noted that, generally agreed-upon principles of international law are closely interlinked. each should be considered in light of other principles. specifically, clinical context. and historic specificity. the political, legal, and historic backdrop of the events in ukraine are extremely complicated. it would be useful to recall here that up until 9054, crimea was a part of the russian federation. it was given to ukraine in violation of the norm of that time under soviet law.
without taking into account the view of the people of crimea. they nevertheless remained within a single state. when the ussr fell, it became part of ukraine automatically. the view of the people of crimea was ignored. after the fall of the ussr, more than 20 years, crimea attempted to defend itself. in january of 1991, in crimea, there was a referendum conducted. as a result, there was a lot -- law that established a economy. in december 1991, the high council of crimea adopted a declaration. in 1992, a constitution was adopted in crimea.
it declared them an independent state. however, in 1995, through the decision of the ukraine, the constitution was an old without the agreement of the people. other arguments have been put forward by this delegation in favor of the legality of the referendum. this was on 13 march. in conclusion, we would like to infer that we will respect the will of the crimean people during 16 march's referendum. thank you very much. >> i thank the representative of the russian federation for that demand. i shall now put the draft resolution to the vote. those in favor, s-2014-189, raise their hand? those against?
abstentions? the result of the voting is as follows. 13 votes in favor. one vote against. one abstention. the draft resolution has not been adopted due to the negative vote of a permanent member of the council. i now give the four to those members of the council that was to make statements after the vote. i give the floor to the representative of the united states of america. >> madame president, the united states deeply appreciate the support from our colleagues around this table. and from the many state who have called for a peaceful end to the crisis in ukraine. this is, however, a sad and remarkable moment. this is the seventh time that
the un security council has convened to discuss the urgent crisis in ukraine. the security council is meeting ukraine because it is the job of this body to stand up for peace and defend those in danger. we have heard a lot each time that we have met about the echoes and relevance of history. we have heard, for example, about the pleas of the rape -- brave democrats of hungary in 1956 and about the dreams of czechs in 1968. we still have the time and collective power to ensure that the past does not become prologue. history has lessons for those of us who are willing to listen. unfortunately, not everyone is willing to listen today. under the u.n. charter, the russian federation has the power to veto a security council resolution.
it does not have the power to veto the truth. as we know, the word truth has a prominent place in the story of modern russia. from the days of lenin and trotsky to the fall of the berlin wall, that was the name of the house newspaper of the soviet communist regime. throughout that time, one could search in vain to find truth in that newspaper. once again, one searches in vain to find truth in the russian position on crimea, i knew crane, or on the proposed resolution considered and vetoed a few moments ago. the truth is, this resolution should not have been controversy over. it was grounded in principles that provide the foundation for international stability and law. article two of the u.n. turner, -- charter, their prohibition of forced to acquire territory, and the territorial integrity of member
states. these are principles that russia agrees with and defense vigorously around the world, except, it seems, in circumstances that involve russia. the resolution broke new -- no new legal ground. it called on all parties to do what they had previously pledged to internationally binding agreement to do. we recall the helsinki act and the budapest memorandum, in which russia and other signatories reaffirmed their commitments to respect ukraine's territorial integrity. the resolution called on the government of ukraine to do what it has promised it will do to protect the rights of all ukrainians, including those belonging to minority groups. the resolution noted that the planned memorandum for tomorrow has no legal affect on the status of crimea. from the beginning of this crisis, the russian position has
been at odds not only with the law, but also with the fact. the claims that the rights of people within the ukraine were under attack. that has validity only in parts of ukraine where russian military forces were exercising undue influence. russia denied they were intervening militarily. they have surrounded and occupy public openings, shut down airports, and prevented entry into ukraine of international observers. russian leadership has disclaimed any intention of trying to annex crimea. then reversed itself and concocted a rationale for justifying just such an illegal act. they claim their intentions are peaceful.
but russian officials have shown little interest in u.n., european, and american efforts at diplomacy. including secretary of state john kerry's effort yesterday and monday. russia has refused ukraine's outstretched hands. russian armed forces are marching across the eastern border. two days ago in this very chamber, the prime minister appealed to russia to embrace peace. instead, russia has rejected a resolution that has peace at its heart and law flowing through its veins. the united states offers this resolution and a spirit of reconciliation and a desire for peace, in keeping with the rule of law and recognition of the fact and for film and of this council to promote and preserve stability among nations. at the moment of decision, only one hand rose to oppose those principles. russia isolated, alone, and wrong, blocked the resolution's passage, just as it has blocked ukrainian ships and international observers. russia put itself outside of those international norms that we have painstakingly developed to serve as the bedrock
foundation for peaceful relations between states. the reason only one country voted no today is that the world believes that international borders are more than mere suggestions. the world believes that people within those internationally recognized borders have the right to chart their own future, free from intimidation. and the world believes that the lawless pursuit of one's ambitions serves none of us. russia has used its veto as to accomplish for unlawful military incursion. it was given nearly 70 years ago to countries that have led an epic fight against the russians. in so doing, russia can not change the fact that moving forward in blatant defiance of the international rules of the road will have consequences. nor can it change crimea's status. crimea is part of ukraine today.
it will be part of ukraine tomorrow. it will be part of ukraine next week. it will be part of ukraine unless and until it status is changed in accordance with ukrainian and international law. russia prevented adoption of a resolution today. but it cannot change the aspiration and destiny of the ukrainian people and they cannot deny the truth displayed today, that there is overwhelming international opposition to this dangerous actions. thank you. >> i thank the representative of the united states of america. i now give the floor to the representative of france. >> madam president, it is with a feeling of incredulity that we are meeting here today. we feel incredulity at the scenario brought under our gaze by the russian federation to annexed crimea. nothing had been missing.
we thought this had been relegated to the dusty shelves of history. military maneuvers on borders. a man ignored yesterday. that elevated crimea. occupation denied against all evidence. propaganda. now, the masquerade of a memorandum that is not merely illegal, not merely cobbled together, not merely an electoral campaign, but just reduced to two yeses. the people of crimea cannot say anything. the international law is so obvious that we almost feel pity at witnessing the russian diplomat being so -- respecting form and debating on the legal basis for action. one day, a letter from a head of state disappeared. the next day, it was recorded. then, after feverish research,
we hear it was exhumed from 1975. moscow is willing to grasp it star -- straws. we want --we have seen them take opposite positions. they are proving that russia has made a mistake in both cases. in 1976 and 2014. all the same, my russian colleague and i are in agreement and with the representative said in 1975. any attempt to destroy the national unity or integrity of our country is incompatible with the principles of the united nations charter. in reality, nothing emerges from these pathetic efforts. not the embryo of a legal
reasoning. a text which is vetoed recalls the fundamental principles of the charter. the headlines can be quite clear. russia has vetoed the u.n. charter. desperately then, moscow is invoking the pretest of protecting russians threatened in crimea. i am sure that in neighboring countries where there are russian minorities, this right to interfere that russia suddenly takes into itself will be appreciated. i am sure that in neighboring countries where there are russian minorities, this right to interfere that russia suddenly takes into itself will be appreciated. not the slightest violence is observed by journalists. not confirmed by refugees.
hundreds of thousands of refugees -- where have they gone? why have they never existed? in the absence of law, we commit to history. crimea was with russia. so what? are we to take up our history books again? to scrutinize borders, challenge them, or defend them? when will we stop? for 170 years, crimea was russian. for three centuries, it was under turkish rule. we cannot justify what is unjustifiable. you can justify everything by history. these speeches that are denied as soon as they are made. the reasoning is forgotten as soon as they are put forward. things are simple. force cannot prevail over law.
this is too serious or dangerous for every member state, faced with the savagery of international relations. at present, they are costing the lives of thousands in syria and elsewhere. to accept the annexation of crimea would be to forgo everything we are trying to build in this organization. it would turn the charger into a farce. it would mean that the sword settles disputes. member nations will prove by their refusal to acknowledge, recognize the annexation of crimea, that they know that territorial integrity -- it is a guarantee for all. minorities exist throughout the world.
what would we do if they were to become the pretext for any adventure at the whim of an enterprising neighbor? what will the next time you be? be?ill it this annexation goes beyond ukraine. it is the business of all of us. this veto must not be a defeat. it is a defeat, just for russia. we do not need to follow them. we must remain firm to our attachment to the principles that it denies. these principles are our only defense against a path of russian aggression against ukraine. >> thank you, madam president. this resolution was designed to prevent further escalation of the crisis in ukraine. it invited councilmembers to uphold the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of the
u.n. member states, and to reaffirm u.n. principles. it was about sending a clear signal that holding a referendum in crimea would take us further away from a diplomatic solution. the resounding message from today's vote is that russia stands isolated in this council and in the international community. russia alone backs this referendum. russia alone is prepared to violate international law, disregard the u.n. charter, and tear up bilateral treaties. this message will be heard well beyond the walls of the chamber. madam president, the position of the international community is clear. if this referendum is held tomorrow, it will have no validity, no credibility, and no recognition. we trust that russia will take notice of its isolation. on thursday, we heard a clear
message from the prime minister of ukraine. ukraine is willing to engage in dialogue with russia. to address its concerns. the ball is now firmly in russia's court. if russia fails to respond to ukraine's outstretched hand and continues with its military adventurism, or seeks to take advantage of its illegal referendum, it will lead to further escalation and tension in the region and further consequences for russia. we asked russia to hear the collective voice of the international community today. to rethink the actions and to take the decision to work with ukraine and with the rest of the world to find a peaceful solution. thank you. >> i would like to thank the representative of the united kingdom for that statement. now i would like to give the floor to the representative of lithuania. >> thank you, madam president.
my delegation is profoundly troubled by russia's veto of the resolution on the illegality of the issue in crimea. and is worried about the consequences for the future in the region and internationally. on the 31st of may, 1997, at a ceremony to the monument of the liberated soldier in kiev, the late president of russia, boris yeltsin, declared that ukraine is a sovereign country. russia does not lay claim on any part of ukraine or on any other cities. and yet, in defiance to the budapest memorandum, whereby the russian federation reaffirmed its right to refrain from use force against the territorial integrity, --
contrary to the treaty of friendship between ukraine and the russian federation of 1997, which are from the book countries agreed to respect each other's territorial integrity and confirmed the ability of the existing rules between them. and in violation of the commitments undertaken by russia during its international organizations. ukraine is about to be carved up. individual world leaders have been trying hard in the past few weeks to get russia to engage with ukrainian authorities, to avoid a crisis over crimea. while the ukrainian authorities repeated their readiness to accept international monitors and efforts, russian troops and equipment were being amassed in crimea. accompanied by an aggressive propaganda campaign and anticonstitutional acts by crimean parliament to prepare the ground for an illegal referendum and eventual
annexation of crimea by russia. tomorrow, a referendum will be held. in flagrant violation of ukraine and crimean constitutions and international law. the inhabitants of the peninsula who see their future in and with ukraine said they will boycott this happening. all of us who care for the sovereignty of the country, including the ukrainians, will be left voice list by this he slowly concocted plan. this is simply not on the ballot. our russian colleague has talked about self-determination and independence of crimea. let me quote the self-proclaimed prime minister of crimea. there will be no independents, he said to the press, for crimea. crimea must join russia. it may happen in the next week or so.
it is a missed context that this council has voted for a resolution condemning the legal referendum in crimea, saying yes to the nonuse of force. yes to the sovereignty and territorial integrity and political independence of ukraine. and by way of extension of any sovereign state. my country's yes is a yes to nonaggression. to free choice of destiny. to democracy and the rule of law. to the internationally accepted rules of behavior, based on the morals and principles of international law. today's veto is not business as usual. by doing this resolution, built on the tenants of the charter, which states that all members shall refrain from a threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political
independence of any state. or in any other manner inconsistent with the practices of the united nations. if there is a dispute, it could endanger peace and security. first of all, we will seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, -- resort to agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their own choice. the russian federation is challenging the very principles on which this organization is built. and which supported the international system for the last seven decades. we call on all u.n. member states, regional and international organizations, not to recognize the results of the referendum in crimea. not to recognize any alteration of the state carried out in
clear violation of the constitution of ukraine, a u.n. founding member. we call on russia -- international observers have been invited by the ukrainian government and must be allowed to do their job. we also urge russia to reaffirm their treaty obligations, including respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. and to withdraw without delay of armed forces. only political dialogue and respect of international law can put an end to this crisis and prevent further bloodshed. >> i thank the representative of lithuania for that statement. i now give the floor to their representative of rwanda.
>> thank you, madam president. we wish to extend our thoughts on the task before us. it is unfortunate that we have come to this. this could have been avoided today. working for this was a hard decision. why so? we are not convinced that the timing of this resolution is productive to the objective and purpose of the security council. it is based on the timing. it may not resolve the crisis. is the objective being stated? they isolate each other, including stakeholders. and our search for a peaceful solution to the crisis in ukraine, there is no need to
isolate whoever. there is a need for a real and frank dialogue. that is why we are here, all of us. as the united nations. the situation in ukraine has rapidly unfolded. we are concerned that the pressure has blinded us from carefully analyzing the situation and understanding the causes. therefore, it deters us from finding a suitable solution. it possibly escalate the crisis. why then did we vote? the draft resolution contains important principles, we all agree on. the respective independence. sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries.
and the need for de-escalation of the crisis. most important, for us, this calls for a ukrainian political dialogue. we believe that the crisis in ukraine could be settled by more vigorous campaigning geared towards winning the hearts of ukrainians and ensuring protection of all. we have not seen this so far. there has not been a dialogue. it is time for ukrainians to listen to their hearts. it is time to see both sides helping their communities. to identify the silver thread that has kept them together as a united and prosperous nation for all of these years. in this regard, we appeal to all conflicting parts in ukraine. deny their fears to all aggravating returns.
give a chance to talks. if that means mediators, the u.n. should help. we invite both sides to consider mutual interests for the people of ukraine and to uphold their commitment to bilateral arguments. we call on the international community to fulfill the obligation and ensure no further deterioration and respect the principles of peace and security. finally, this is not a win or loss to any of us. this also should not be taken as shame for any of us. let it be a lesson to all of us. to truly communicate constructively and work towards finding a sustainable solution
to this crisis. i thank you. >> i thank the representative of rwanda. i now give the floor to the representative of china. madam president -- at present, the situation in ukraine is highly complex and sensitive. it has the bearing on both regional and international situations. the international community should engage together and putting through our political solution of the crisis in ukraine. the situation in ukraine has developed to what is today, involving complex historical reasons and reality. it is both accidental and inevitable. therefore, it calls for a comprehensive and balanced solution.
china has always respected sovereignty of territories and integrity of all states. this is the long-standing, fundamental foreign-policy of china. at the same time, we have noticed that foreign interference is also an important reason leading to violent clashes on the streets of ukraine and resulting in crisis in the country. failure to implement a the february 21st agreement has accelerated the turmoil in ukraine with serious social and economic damage to the country.
we condemn and oppose all extreme and violent acts. to stop the crisis in ukraine, the key is to act with in the framework of law and order. seeking early solution of the differences, through dialogue and negotiations. with respect to the legitimate interests of all the people in the various communities and areas. all parties should proceed to maintain peace and stability and protect the fundamental interest of all of the communities in ukraine to keep calm and exercise restraint to avoid further escalation of tensions. while firmly aiming at a political solution, so as to find a specific way out. china has always called on the international community to make constructive efforts to de-escalate the situation in
ukraine and has carried out some mediation. we have noticed some new developments and proposals have appeared. the drafting of the draft resolution by the executive council at this juncture will only result in confrontation and further comforted the situation. this is not in conformity with the common interest of both the people of ukraine and those of the international community. we can only abstain from voting on this resolution. on the issue of ukraine, china has always been their objective. we continue to mediate and promote dialogue. to play a constructive role in seeking political solutions to the crisis and cream. to that end, we would like to propose three suggestions are in first, to establish as soon as possible and international court mating mechanism consisting of all the parties concerned. to explore means for the crisis. second, all parties should refrain from taking any action that would further escalate the situation.
thirdly, international financial institutions should start to explore how to help, maintaining financial stability in ukraine. thank you. >> i thank the representative of china for that statement. i now give the floor to the representative of chile. >> thank you, madam president. the delegation of chile voted in favor of the draft resolution. we believe that this constitutes appropriate response of the counsel to the current crisis in ukraine.
given the situation, there are fundamental principles of the international legal order at stake, such as abstaining from the threat of force and use of force and respecting the territorial integrity of ukraine. the budapest memorandum requires the contracting parties to observe the independence and current borders of ukraine and to avoid the use of force or threat of force or any action against political independence. the holding of a referendum on the status of crimea is not in accordance with the constitution of ukraine. a unified state, of which crimea is part and parcel. it is fundamental that they rule of law be observed in ukraine, nationally and internationally.
a unified state, of which crimea is part and parcel. it is fundamental that they rule of law be observed in ukraine, nationally and internationally. it is for the people of ukraine alone to determine their destiny, it is an inclusive democratic process. guaranteeing the rule of law, human rights, fundamental freedoms. with respect to the rights of minorities. the way to resolve the crisis has to be a peaceful one, by means of dialogue. in accordance with the provisions of international law, chile regrets that the united nations, which bears the primordial responsibility of safeguarding international peace and security, has not been able to support a resolution today because of the use of the veto.
we have not the filled the task, thank you. >> i think the representative of chile for that statement. i now give the floor to the representative from argentina. >> thank you, madam president. the delegation of argentina believes that there is not much sense in talking about future events and political consequences. however, we have voted for the draft resolution because it is the primacy of territorial integrity. we have done this with the hope that this draft may contribute to implementing constructive dialogue in ukraine, seeking ways to a peaceful solution.