labor practices, pay differences on insurance issues from safety, morale, etc., what is it let's say the percentage is basically the same in a given area or same enough for purposes of comparison, what is that in cheating factor would you say? >> we hire people fairly on. a lot of our staff, we don't pay as much as a contractor we don't pay as much as the u.s. government so people come to less often straight out of college. we have people who came to us -- we were the first job back in 2002 and they are still working with us because we place an incredible emphasis internally the same as externally on the capacity and so that's not just sending somebody to training in thailand once in awhile but english teachers on-site for the clerks and cleaners and we offer everybody university education

and we take very good care of people when they get sick, we have unlimited health care services and we also are going to be around we open indefinitely, so the same reason the community's work with us through thick and thin and take tremendous risks to guarantee the safety and security. .. >> the assistant to the president for human rights samantha powers spoke about

emerging democracies including braille turkey south africa and south korea. she describes how these countries have become involved in global human rights issues. this is part of the conference hosted by the brookings institution and the national endowment for democracy. it runs one hour. >> okay, why do we get going? i'm carl gershman the president of the national endowment for democracy and it is my great for both pleasure and honor to introduce to you today samantha power, who is a special assistant to the president and senior director of multilateral affairs at the white house and runs the office for multilateral affairs and human rights. samantha is well-known to a lot of people in this room and for a very very long time, because of

of -- she has had a very powerful voice on issues relating to human rights, human dignity, and you know fundamental issues of human rights in the world. a lot of what samantha has focused on in her work in the government is what she wrote about before going into the government. certainly her book chasing the flame is a book about the human rights, great human rights defender, and this has certainly been the kind of work that she has done and when she was at harvard, she held the anna lindh besser ship right outlined to

her that the number of governance in the orange revolution in ukraine were tracked cracking down on civil society and preventing ngo's from operating. and she took a great interest in that issue, and eventually you know it has now become a very important issue for the

administration. president obama spoke about this in his last u.n. address. secretary clinton gave her major speech at the kraków meeting last july on the whole issue of defending civil society and then the u.s. was part of a campaign within the human rights council of the u.s. to create a new special rapporteur on freedom of assembly and association, and i know that samantha was probably involved in all of these things and certainly making it an important issue in the administration. she is so busy also, with her important book on a problem from hell, been deeply deeply concerned about the problem of genocide and the mass atrocity crimes. last november, she took part in a very important meeting that was organized in paris by the holocaust museum, which was attended by other officials in

our government, david pressman who is the national security director at the war crimes -- at the national security council for problems dealing with war crimes and atrocities. stephen rap the ambassador for war crimes in the state department. our government has positions in the white house and in the state department which seek to anticipate potential mass atrocity crimes and the speech that samantha gave in paris at this conference really focused on how can governments better organize themselves to be able to anticipate and to prevent crimes, mass atrocity crimes, crimes against humanity genocides.

the issue for which we are talking about at this conference, merging markets, foreign policy, the international policies, will be called merging market democracies, is one that she has taken a very large interest in any administration. we have talked about it a great deal. she has spoken about indonesia, india, brazil and other countries that were dealing with today and the importance of their international policies. this is not an issue though interestingly that she wrote a great deal about before coming in. unlike the other issues that i've mentioned that but it is one by now that she has a very large and deep interest in, and we are really anxious to hear her thinking today. let me just say also, by way of introduction before i introduce samantha, that she really has

come here today also because she wants to hear from you. we have a number of very interesting people who have spoken on these issues, and she hopes to be able to take feedback from the audience so that this -- on these issues. we are going to hear from samantha and then she really wants to hear from the audience in terms of comments and thoughts and i hope that the major presenters at this conference will give their thoughts and reaction to what she has to say, and then i think that will be very beneficial to the administration as it tries to develop its thinking about the whole issue of the importance and how to work with what we called the emerging market democracy and why they are so important in terms of

america's thinking about foreign policy today. so it really is a great honor and a great pleasure for me to well, samantha to this conference and i just really want everybody to know that it considers her to be a real fun fun -- friend within the administration. samantha. [applause] >> thanks so much. i'm very sorry not to have been able to attend the proceedings before me because i'm sure i would have learned a tremendous amount and i really do look forward just to sitting back and taking notes after you hear from me here. so, i will talk today about merging market democracies and their role in human rights focusing specifically on the countries around which you have built this conference, and the

obligatory caveat here but i see many of the so-called emerging democracies have democratic traditions and human rights traditions of different kinds that date back generations if not centuries. that said, when president obama took office, the number of democracies in the world had grown in the previous two decades from 69 in 1989 to 119 in 2009. however the number of countries actively supporting democracy and human rights bilaterally and in international flora have remained quite static in that same period. for the last two years this demonstration has made a conscious effort to work with emerging democracies to enlist their support and standing up for human rights around the world. in his u.n. general assembly address, which carl alluded to in 2010, president obama dressed the issues, the theme of your conference, head on saying i

appeal to those nations who emerge from tierney and inspire the world and the second half of the last century from south africa to south asia, from eastern europe to south america. don't stand idly by. don't be silent. when dissidents elsewhere are imprisoned and protesters are beaten, recall your own history because part of the price of our own freedom is standing up for the freedom of others. in pursuing a partnership with emerging democracies on democracy and human rights, this administration i think has brought several premises to their. first, and obvious one, and the world is interconnected none of us can afford to allow gross violations of human rights to go unaddressed. the given the spillover and the destabilizing effects of the following repression to fester, it long ago ceased to be viable to treat human rights conditions as merely the internal affairs of a sovereign state. over 60 years ago the u.n. charter and the universal declaration recognized that

protecting human dignity at home is critical to preserving peace and security of broad. president obama has pressed this pragmatic case to other people and governments, stressing governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, more successful and more secure. in short, the more true democracies there are in the world, the better off we are in the better off our democracies are. is it price they because emergent democracies are democratic, they will face, the governments will face going pressure from within to align their foreign policies with their domestic -- and to integrate human rights concerns. this pressure will come in part from young people who haven't carried within the sovereign with them the sovereign to versus human rights baggage if you will from the 20th century the evolution of the human rights debate in the united states in a sense is constructive, our congress, our free press and their human

rights and other advocacy organizations empowered with modern technology have highlighted inconsistencies in u.s. policy, exposed human rights abuses abroad and generally created what i call foreign-policy accountability, holding us accountable for the extent to which human rights is injected into our foreign-policy. in emerging democracies we have seen countless campaigns by ngo's, investigative journalist, bloggers facebook users and others, pressing human rights concerns at home and it is only a matter of time we believe before these agents of change apply their tools to their own country's foreign-policy and i will give a few examples of that later in my remarks. the third premise that we bring to bear is that new democracies can make the difference. we believe the future of democracy and human rights around the world in places like libya, burma and zimbabwe, venezuela will end and turn not only on the strength of democratic movements in those countries, which it will turn on

primarily, and not only on the willingness of traditional democracies to stand with these movements but also on the determination of emerging market democracies to skip -- tip the scales. when they take a stand it disrupts the old alignments and paves the way for fresh coalitions to press for change. simply put, people are suffering under repressive rule need to emerging market democracies to stand up for them. now here i think we are seeing some quite encouraging trends that i would like to try to highlight. first, emerging democracies are exerting growing leadership and other venues that may well pave the way for more assertive political leadership on the issue central to this conference. for example, that most famous example is the emerging democracies have helped ensure that the g20 has replaced the g8 as a premier global venue for management of economic affairs. and in taking up their economic

responsibilities, many emerging democracies are showing signs of recognizing and embracing the unavoidable link with political developments around the world. a second trend, and this one has been in place for some years, emerging democracies are playing an ever more important role in strengthening international peacekeeping which is a critical ingredient to promoting freedom from fear and some of the world's most dangerous places. indonesia has shown particular striking growth on this front. their 27 individual serving in u.n. peacekeeping operations in 2003 and they now have nearly 1800. hundred. indonesia has also established a training center for peacekeepers and the u.s. and indonesia have pledged to work together to turn the center into a network hub -- hub for -- or sale and south africa's contributions of also the run rapidly. both up and deployed around 100

personnel to u.s. peacekeeping at the beginning of the last decade and each contributes more than 2000 today. brazil has led as many as you know provided about him for the u.n. stabilization mission in haiti, and this is dating back to 2004, and it is notable that at the time of the earthquake when the brazilian contingent itself had suffered such casualties the brazilian government decided to double the brazilian contribution. not something a lot of countries would have done in the wake of such a tragedy. of course one cannot talk about peacekeeping without talking about india, one of the world's very oldest democracies for which the phrase emerging democracy is a serious misnomer. in addition to lumping one of the world's leading peacekeeping contributors india has nearly tripled its contribution over the past 10 years with its 8500 blue helmets make it the third-largest contributor in the world today. we are also seeing emerging democracy stand up for and reach out to the poor.

becoming players on the global development stage and a number of important ways. these factors are less inclined to interact with less developed countries and a donor, tony relationship that they could typically engages peoples in developing collaborative solutions to their development challenges. are still for example has helped partners in africa include assistance for farmers by identifying and promoting the rapid acceptance of new crop varieties suited to grow in the local environment. similarly indian partnership with the united states and other governments is leveraging its scientific and technical expertise to develop tests and replicate transformative technologies to extend good security both in india and beyond its borders. india india india has just increased its contribution to the u.n. democracy fund picking making it the second-largest donor to the fund in the world. third, emerging democracies seem increasingly comfortable strengthening international

norms on crosscutting human rights issues. if given a fresh points of entry into the human rights conversation that had grown stale in certain quarters in recent years, and these emerging democracies seen increasingly inclined to partner with traditional democracies. at the human rights council, con con -- countries facilitated with a the group of 77 or nonaligned movement singling out specific countries for criticisms which they call or have called finger-pointing. however countries like brazil and indonesia have recently demonstrated a new willingness to press general global human rights taking a leadership role for instancing creating a position that karl mentioned, the new special repertoire on freedom association and assembly, the first international mechanism ever created to monitor the growing crack down on civil society. your eye would help in indonesia was a critical co-sponsor of that revolution from a very early stage which in turn made it possible to bring other

emergencies democracy so we were at eventually able to get this special repertoire created through a consensus measure rather than a faux. that is how overwhelming the majority was and how it many emerging democracy stepped up. brazil also played a leadership role in pursuing in his last counsel section 8 cross-regional statement signed by 85 countries calling for greater respect for the rights of lgbt persons and agreeing to seek the establishment of special repertoire and lgbt writes in the inter-american system. the first ever respiratory on these issues. on the u.n. security council we see other examples. brazil has generally been a bridgebuilder on the council and human rights on issues such as women peace and security which links the exclusion of women from conflict really slated -- related decision making and the protection of civilians. our shared commitment to open government and corruption, fighting corruption and promoting transparency has urban important common bond with many

emerging market democracies. we are working with indonesia brazil mexico and others within the u.n., the g20 and oecd and international financial institutions to promote the recognition that corruption is a violation of basic human rights and a severe impediment to development and security. indonesia has been a key partner in our efforts to advance a anticorruption agenda in the g20, serving as cochair of the process produced a sold action plan on anticorruption. we are partnering with a diverse group of governments and emergency democracies to launch an effort to bring greater transparency to government budgets, expenditures and the assets of public officials and to find ways of leveraging new technologies to harness citizen engagement. this is also a theme that president obama laid out in his address last fall. brazil is a cochair of this open government effort with the united states and the two presidents highlighted our shared commitment on over and government during the recent brazil is it.

president obama highlighted the launch of an open government dialogue with india on his visit leicester in the two countries to americanize the first-ever democracy and open government expo which president obama toured while in india. in his effort, countries are sharing best practices on the ways in which they have institutionalized transparent practices, extending procurement international aid flows and natural resources to make it harder for officials to strengthen the efforts of citizens to hold their governments accountable. emerging democracies are often at the cutting edge of these efforts and they are helping to contribute to global community of knowledge and experience, can see that includes not only governments but civil society and the private sector. fourth, despite their traditional reluctance which i are diluted to two hole predict other countries accountable, emerging democracies have infection rowing willingness to. >> out in the face of human rights abuses and crackdowns. here i would offer three recent examples, iran ivory coast in

libya. on iran brazil voted in geneva last month to create a special repertoire for human rights having these resolution on iran since 2004. this as this as many of you know is the first country specific mandate adopted since the creation of a human rights council. in part because of this leadership, and the willingness of other countries to follow the lead of dominant regional players the resolution reinstating the iran human rights repertory pass by the widest margin of any of the counselor commissions resolutions since 1997. i will grant that iran's actions on the ground have a lot to do with that lopsided vote as well. india too abstained on iran for the first time in the general assembly vote having always voted no in the past and south africa on a random resolution in the last two years having voted no since 2003. so we are hitting extensions on

a range of issues. on the ivory coast which of course is has come to a head this week, when he came to u.n. security council action in response to the contested election there and the intent by the former presidential retained power, some important ideas were were -- nonintervention on the one hand and the importance of regional problem-solving on the other. however ultimately all councilmembers, including brazil, india and south africa joint consensus on repeated press statements and resolutions. this included imposing sanctions on gbagbo and for others a notable shift from the nonaligned movement's traditional taste for sanctioning regimes and their leaders. overtime the council's products called more forcefully for enforcement of the mandates to protect civilians. while south africa was initially skeptical of the un's endorsement of the election outcomes there position evolved in the support for the findings of the day you you may have been

a turning point in the resolution of the electoral crisis. ultimately, all emerging democracies on the council voted in favor of u.n. security council resolution 1975 which carried with it a very forceful mandate accelerating the defeat of gbagbo. the support for these resolutions despite misgivings in many countries over whether the political track had yet run its course. they still were prepared to support robust enforcement on the ground. this regional solidarity that i mentioned is responsible for now being able to consolidate control over the country. this regional solidarity will prove especially important in the remainder of this year. this is a year in which 17 of africa's 47 countries will hold national elections are there the presidential power mattair -- behind democratic. libya come the third example i

would like to discuss, south africa joined in support of u.n. security council resolution in 1973 which took the unusual step of authorizing all necessary measures to protect civilians without the consent of a sovereign government. while brazil and india abstained on this resolution they did not vote no and they join the consensus resolution several weeks earlier, resolution 1970 that imposed if sanctions and an arms embargo on the gadhafi regime and the referred libya and any crimes committed there, crimes against humanity and war crimes to the national criminal court. obviously the doubts about enforcement action, robust enforcement action run deep. yesterday's first expanded summit which includes along with china and russia three emerging democracies brazil india and south africa, saw the brick express severe misgivings about the use of force in libya. we are going to need to enhance consultation and continue the dialogue obviously over the need for enforcement of 1973 unless we fail to protect civilians.

it is worth pointing out also just how contested country specific criticisms and actions are for the individuals within these emerging market democracies. brazilian president former political prisoner experience and torture the hands of the military has been more outspoken than her predecessor on international human rights concerns. for example sheet she distanced herself wester publicly from president lula's comments comparing political dissidents in cuba to common criminals and upon taking office, she placed to criticize cuba for its human rights shortcomings. such policy pronouncements far critique even within the halls of power in brazil. intentions such as these are likely to surface more and are in the months and years ahead. the fifth trend i think that is worth flagging here today is that we we are and i live to the survey we are seeing a growing number of examples of automat pressure from within emerging

democracies to see greater attention to human rights and democracy beyond their borders. we in the u.s. government recognize that we are not the only one to have to mess to politics with which to contend. as i alluded to earlier in the united states a couple of decades ago it was the congress to push the executive branch, to formally report on human rights around the world and it was the congress that began restricting funding streams on human rights grounds. today it remains u.s. civil society, carl and a lot of you in this room and u.s. constituents will hold us and the government accountable not only for policies our policies at home but also our actions abroad. similarly in the new democracy it will take time for parliament and civil society and the media to turn outward as well. they are very encouraging signs of. we have seen the burma caucus and indonesia parliament play an important role in putting the fate of the burmese on the political map and indonesia interned played a leading role in checking human rights into the asean charter. we have seen growing indignation

citizen pride over the countries launching of the bali democracy formats and tenacious tenacious self identity increasingly takes pride in being a leading democracy in the region and in the world. we have seen thousands of brazilian citizens join a letterwriting campaign to press press -- previous president lula in an indie show which has 15,000 governmental organizations, the united states has recently launched a new initiative alleging to fund those groups, those non-governmental groups that would like to partner with other human rights it organizations in the region said to try to incentivize work on their border since they have such a huge amount to offer, having undergone the transition they have. and since egypt's recent resolute -- revolution it is not worth a think that egyptian civil society has found ways virtually and on the ground to

connect with indonesians, chileans, poles and others in moving from dictatorship to democracy. so, those are the trends and i think those are quite encouraging. needless to say however, there is always more to be done at home and abroad by all of us to consolidate democratic gains and to promote and protect human rights, and we should not underplay genuine disagreements as we seek to forge more cooperation across borders. there are several reasons our policies are unlikely to fully align in the very near-term. we have different histories. some emergency and democracies view the sovereign shields as protecting them from interference during the cold war and other times in their history. the lessons of history are seeing different way. some emergency democracies and the repression of dictatorship on their own on external help

and therefore discounts the notion that such external help can play a positive role in fostering democratization. we believe outside actors cannot dictate a fence and democratic progress, that we all do have a constructive role to play and moreover we have come to see how difficult it is to be neutral in our dealings with repressive states. we are are there a factoring human rights into our foreign-policy, or we can be sending a signal to a repression of her shame that the right to citizens are not important to us. we are at different stages as well and democratic and economic development. many emerging market democracies are still consolidating their own gains at home. they are attempting to close extreme inequality gaps and in so doing would not be able to convince their own democratic voters that it would be for example he a good use of taxpayer money to provide large amounts of democracy assistance. countries not as far along in

the democratic development spectrum. we also -- different interest. while many emerging powers have markets. while many of them believe democracy is a stabilizing force in the long term, they may see the process of democratization of destabilizing in the near term especially if it is a process that occurs in a region. and even if charges are similar we may prioritize those interests in different ways for seek different means to the same ends. notwithstanding the different vantage point, we feel we we are making progress together and present a bonus invited more assertive leadership in emerging democracies. indeed, one way to track president's commitment to progress in these countries is just to check his travel schedule. most of the trips that he is chosen to take in his first two years highlight the importance he places on the embrace of a emerging democracies and regional democratic anchors. he is visited ghana, india,

indonesia, japan, korea, mexico, brazil and chile among other countries. the trips to india and brazil in particular was national security advisory tom allen and dennis mcdonough spent months planning highlight the full on embrace of the rise of emerging powers. this administration is signaling desire to engage even on contentious issues in a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect. when it comes to coalition building in geneva and new york we have approached emerging democracies early and often in the process rather than coming to them when the human rights action for resolution has fully -- and engaged only in new york or geneva but high-level capitals recognizing the challenge of overcoming a great resistance on some of these issues. building these relationships with the democracies that must not come at a cost i should know to the u.s. traditional democratic alliances. they remain critically important to our effort to promote human rights and accountability but in the world with over 190 million

yuan states we must build bridges to these critical powers. perhaps our most effective tool for the polarizing tools for the polarizing the traditional debate of human rights and democracy are motion are speaking more openly about our efforts to address our own shortcomings and also bridging some of the ideological divide in the human rights and democracy debate. president obama's success in reinvigorating u.s. human rights commitments has made it easier for other governments to stand with us on these and other issues in international fora. the president has made it very clear that he believes human rights begin at home and that one of our most powerful tools as our example and our struggle, and going struggle to perfect our union. this is included reaffirming the ban on torture and of course the effort he is made to close gone, no. it continues along multiple fronts preparing a ratification for the u.n. abilities commissioned to produce its own action plan to mainstream gender

consideration international security policy ending "don't ask don't tell," including the united states and our record in our own global trafficking reports etc. etc.. this also entails spelling spelling of this demonstration will not do. back in his cairo address, in 2009, president obama renounced the imposition of democracy by deleterious force, saying quote no system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other. and a pledge to respect all democratically elected movements that reject violence and govern with respect for all their people. he said his administration listen to the voices of all peaceful and law-abiding voices even if we disagree with them. and he has also challenged the fall divisions around the very definition of human rights and democracy. hear the president has emphasized an inclusive conception of human rights and democracy in speeches that have resonated greatly i think in africa, asia of the middle east and beyond.

the president keeps coming back to the centrality of human dignity, human dignity. he is spoken as they dignity of work on the dignity of peaceful protests, the dignity of choosing one leader, the dignity of being able to. >> freely and pray freely. he has spoken not only in terms of individual dignity but also of the dignity of nations deserving of our respect. the president is foreign-policy teams that consistently make clear that elections alone do not democracy make. it is also independent media independent judiciary and private sector and civil society that drives democratic process. and going to be said memorably africa doesn't need strongmen, need strong institutions. in his nobel speech he returned to want one one want a president kennedy's most memorable ideas and he said quote let us focus on a more practical more attainable peace based not on a sudden revolution in human nature that on a gradual evolution in human institutions.

as part of his challenge to fox division of president has emphasized link between freedom from fear and freedom from want. and given a greater emphasis to economic development in foreign-policy that we have seen in generations. we have seen recently in the revolution sparked by the frustrations of a fruit vendor just how important these issues are. and just how central the linkage is. president obama highlighted these connections with the release of the first-ever presidential policy directive on global development and secretary clinton spearheaded the introduction of a new tool to ensure that development gets the attention it deserves. we had long said rarities as many of you know in the defense department quadrennial defense review or qdr but it was secretary clinton who introduced the quadrennial diplomacy and development review or qddr. this the sequestration policies are rooted in the president's idea expressed in his nobel speech that "hsbc includes not only civil and political rights that must encompass economic security and opportunity.

beginning with his 2006 beach before the kenyan parliament while still a senator and i mention this are ready present obama's also emphasize the corruption is a profound assault on human dignity and human rights and secretary clinton had taken the step of highlighting corruption in the annual human rights report, the country report the state department does. finally, the president has stressed that nothing changed must come from the bottom up and be indigenous common approach that resonates really those emerging democracies but write themselves on the histories, their own histories and masters of their national movements emerging democracies suspicious of outside intervention. the president has repeatedly stressed the changes is not something the united states or any other country can force nor is there one model for change. each nation gives life to this principle of democracy in its own way grounded in the traditions of its own people. america does not present to know what is best for everyone.

each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people and its past traditions. however this vision is not a recipe for america standing on the sidelines. the president has coupled his respect for other traditions with with a challenge to developing countries to take responsibility to fix homegrown problems. and he is express confidence in the universality of human rights that all people yearn for certain things. is not western values that cause the people of libya to risk their lives on behalf of democracy. as a the president said in moscow in a meeting with the society group these ideals are not the monopoly of one country. wherever possible he is invoking universal human rights international political rights and international insurance at the very governments abusing human rights long ago joined. this humility has helped us build these cross-regional coalitions with what seem to be increasingly willing heart nurse in conclusion, the obama's administration has engaged in a short and long game when it comes to human rights and

democracy promotion. we are vastly more if in both when we are accompanied by regional powerhouses and emerging market democracies that have undergone such inspiring change of their own in recent years. a broader coalition that includes emerging democracies, testifies powerfully to the universality and the principles we are promoting. it denies abusive regimes the refuge they have long sought in regional blocs and the comfort they have found in the diversion of polarization. and finally the leadership of emerging democracies is noticed by the people and repressed societies. is emerging democracies offer a validation of bottom-up change, a testament to how quickly the country's fortune can be transformed and a model for the social vibrancy, the economic growth and the unbounded political horizons that come with democratic change. let me leave it there and just hear from you. thank you. [applause]

>> well, this is now the time when samantha would really like to hear from you. this conference has raised a lot of issues and i think we have even had some internal debates you know in terms of if we are talking about countries just being a model and promoting democracy just by being a model or protecting or promoting. i think there's a consensus that we are imposing, but there is, you know i think there are views here across the spectrum in terms of what is appropriate and i think there are probably some differences among the different countries for which people have given papers. i might note that when asked sometimes about what is it that the data has done that has been interesting and effective i always say that i think one of

the most important things we have done is what we call cross-border work. and that really started you know, after 1989th in poland and now other countries in central europe, to make -- because they believed in democracy but also to make their neighborhood more stable reached out across borders to work for democracy and we help some 55 ngo's from post-communist world working not just further to the east and eurasia but also as far afield as burma or afghanistan. so this is a very very important dimension of what what we do and obviously the u.s. believes that it needs crust order work too from friends and that is what we have heard from samantha. you know, what we want to do now is really hear from some of the speakers perhaps, give a chance to give a reaction to what samantha said. she wants feedback so i'm going to open the floor for people

really to make statements. she is going to say something may may be in conclusion but really now is the opportunity for people from the floor to say something. yes, please. >> al-maliki and, a.m. media. from your vantage point recently, how has the implementation of sharia islamic law affected democratic and human rights advances in attacks in the emerging democratic world in particular? >> that is not a comment but a question that we will take you. wasn't addressed to me? anybody have any comments to me? please, over here. >> i'm with george mason university.

my comment is when we look at human rights there seems to be a certain amount of irritation that is required just by limited amount of resources, and in terms of saving lives, addressing structural violence seems to be a much more cost effective method band doing a direct violent approach with military intervention or significantly more -- in addressing structural violence. so, i guess my question for you is how are you prioritizing those different comparative advantages or cost-effectiveness and my comment with the it seems like we should be doing more structural --. >> what do you mean by that? addressing structural violence? give me an example. >> dealing with poverty prevention, those types of capacity building instead of the military forms of intervention.

>> okay. i see a hand here and in a handbag there and then in the very back. >> good afternoon. my name is allison johnson. i'm in international political economist and i would like very much to explore deeper what we have been talking about today and yesterday around the right type of program inc. over time to support democratization and rights. of course we could also provide that kind of feedback for the emerging democracies and how they think about programming, because one of the things that we have been talking to india is an increase in funding from the united states government over time for democracy promotion. how are you structuring things to approach congress in this budget crisis, where we can put more funding into promotion of human rights and democracy in our work around the world? how do you see matching our

reactions from congress? do you believe there is a window of space, of dialogue on this because over time, it is probably in a more productive use of our u.s. tax dollars to invest in that democracy promotion than in other programs. thank you. >> thank you and that naysay from the very beginning the administration has been very good in his budget request but of course it is congress that has the power of the purse. yes. >> thank you. i am leon from university of wisconsin international affairs. you focus on the present regard for human dignity and you mentioned rule of law, democratic elections and he specifically cited the importance of the international convention on civil and political rights. i notice he did not mentioned the other international convention, economic and social rights and there often are

claims for such things as the right to food, right to shelter, education and even some would say a right to be free for example from something like toxic waste. i wonder how you feel the administration is on these economic and social rights? where do they stand in relation to civil and political rights? are there distractions or should we be handling them the same way? >> thanks very much. kelly. kelly curry. >> kelly curry from the -- is a two. thank you for this presentation. it raises a lot of interesting issues. i was so much persons -- surprised surprise that one word he did mention throughout the entire presentation was china. it has been a topic on several of the panels about how some of these emerging market democracies are shaping their policies in response to china come, in response to the pressures china's putting on them and china's behavior around the world.

and it seems that there may be at times some cognitive dissidents and between the messages you are putting out the administration supports democratic development, these countries as natural partners but also at times a privileged relationship with china which is obviously not a democracy and at times doesn't seem to be pushing too much for china to become more democratic or tank gauge and political reform. so i think if you kind of look at the entire picture, it can be a little bit disconcerting to have that's toned running through the administration's foreign-policy, and that is my comment i guess. >> thanks, kelly. yes, are there any other -- are there any other hands? i see one here.

no. >> hi, amber with the brookings institution. i think my question is on just, i think there is a change in discourse from democracy promotion to democracy was -- democracy strengthening. some of the programs that are related to democracy strengthening i think are a lot harder to measure what our impact really is and in a tight budget environment when dollar state to go further, how can the increasing focus on monitoring and evaluation really jibe with democracy strengthening programs that are hard to get concrete numbers for and any thoughts on that would be interesting. >> actually we don't even use the term democracy even though it is in the conference. we don't use the word democracy promotion and more. a lot of the activists on the ground don't like it. they are fighting but they want

support and assistance so we use the term democracy assistance. we don't really use democracy promotion in more but it seems to add it dented the lexicons. there something we can do about it that we don't think in those terms is my point. please, in the back there. >> in his speech to the general assembly president obama as you mentioned spoke out about the need for these new emerging democratic powers to speak and there has been a lot of initiative to try to work with these countries, but is there may be a plan at some point to hold those countries that haven't made progress in speaking out to keep others accountable or to press the more forcefully, maybe more than just talking about cooperation?

>> this will be more of a comment maybe. [inaudible] i think this is partially a reflection of the things we have discussed here already about six countries. there are two different ways of looking, or several ways of looking at what the humans rights issues in the world agenda are and there is certainly a question of credibility when it comes to are there former imperial powers are the united states in terms of your understanding of what human rights are because as you yourself said, there are different understandings of human rights and a professor from wisconsin as well suggested that a poor country understanding what the basic

human rights are indoors may be very different. secondly of course you have your record, which in large parts of the world lead people to think that you are being hypocritical. thirdly, there is also the issue especially on the part of the united states, of course the dominant power, of being very selective even on the issue of libya. libya in a rain are happening at the same time. i can't understand why you can. >> speak about libya but be quiet on bahrain. it is also the issue of israel. israel's own citizens, the kinds of discriminatory practices that are emerging where you usually are are there mom or very quiet, the so-called can secular engagement if there is any for south africa which was criticized when we had the south africa panel. so that may be understood is

partially domestic politics, partially the responsibilities of the great power. you cannot distract all balances in the world. you have your interest in all that. how do you work on trying to, if you will, the perception of what the u.s. does and why the u.s. does what it does and second how do you get to a more common understanding of human rights if that is at all possible? when you you said you are were engaging and dialogue with partners, you have had their brand and south africa some reluctance joining the united states on the issue or whatever, is it because you prevail over them with political arguments or is it because you are in conversation and changing your own language, your own discourse and rare beast and. >> thanks. any of the other speakers or anybody else?

icy hand all the way in the back there. >> i just wanted, this may be a little unfair, but how does the thrust of your remarks and the importance of encouraging emerging democracies square with the kind of op-ed that was published this morning or yesterday where president obama joined the heads of state or heads of government rather great britain and france while the indians and the brazilians and the south africans were putting out a kind of different kind of statement? how does that help your effort? it just seems quite different from the kind of approach that you are stressing in your speech. >> okay, well i think maybe these two hands and that will be

yet. >> peggy hicks with human rights watch. i wanted to pick up on the two last dickers points. we heard from her internation panel earlier and one of the common -- commentaries was about the fact that one of the reasons in the nation i can't engage as much on democracy is that my bike is because it lacks the democratic credentials and i wanted to reflect on that a bit with regard to how the u.s. engages on democracy and samantha has mentioned very good points about how the u.s. has taken that criticism on board and worked in this administration to engage differently and this openness and talking about economic and social rights. the way you undertook the upr at the human rights council was a think exactly the type of leading by example that we want to see from the u.s. government and which would allow it to play a more positive role with the emerging market democracy but

unfortunately, there are still gaps and lags that need to be addressed, a glaring one. doesn't have a standing invitation of the human rights council but in this country they haven't been able to because of guantánamo detainees on a confidential basis now the issue has come up with regards to this as well. that consistency in those democratic credentials have to be maintained as firmly and appropriately across issues and countries as possible and again the point was made earlier that we don't see as much consistency as we like and need for the u.s. was to be strong there in other places. >> just a quick point in the spirit of the last comment i think, relating to the u.n. security council.

you spoke approvingly of what happened in the g8 in the g20. you are probably surprised to learn in the last couple of days the theme of u.n. reform and the issue of the p5 being so dominant has come up over and over again and i just wanted to know whether you thought a change on that front could calm and if they could how you see that playing into sort of reinforcing approval for the u.s. where there is now a critique of hypocrisy? >> thanks very much for all these comments and questions. samantha? >> yeah, i'm not going to say much. i again would like also to very much to hear from some of the individuals from these countries in question. we have a little motto in this

administration which is we try to live by but nothing about you without you. this comes up a lot in the peacekeeping context. i would just make a few very general comments and response and i'm happy to stick around for a couple of minutes. i've got to rush back to something here in a minute, but from any of the specifics you guys want to follow up on. first on this broad question of kind of a prevention is simply to say that structural violence in the idea that we wait too long until it becomes too costly and so forth. i mean, think what foreign policy is every day for all of its limits is an effort and prevention and at dealing with the causes of structural violence. i had a long section of the speech on the -- on economic development. that is a prevention tool. if you have better partnerships

and more collaboration and more country ownership and more of an emphasis on results, that is your best tool. i mean i think that diplomacy that we have done but that many other countries have done in isolating bob oand the ivory coast contest, that diplomacy is an effort to protect violence before it comes about. you are calling on people to respect the results of democratic elections and in the event that they respect them that in turn is going to prevent unfortunately the violence we have seen in recent weeks. so, i can just say from the inside, it is not like suddenly when there is an occasion in which things have gotten really bad that you suddenly start paying attention and you think oh gosh i wish we would have regretted it. every day we have her aid missions and our diplomats here

and in the countries in question trying to do this kind of work. additionally, as i suggested in the speech, you know, the importance of injecting human rights concern into your day to day diplomacy cannot be understated. that is a signal of a priority we place on this every bit as much as our resources and our programs and sometimes -- one of the things we try to do is marry our diplomacy and sometimes they operate in different silos and we have tried to address that as i think other administrations have. it is challenging but it is critical and it is about making human rights not just the subject of a press release or of a high-profile intervention, but of the day to day routine business of what we can do. in terms of the congressional climate which came up i think in a few comments, i would just say as carl indicated, our budget

requests have been very substantial, and the president and the secretary are incredibly committed to defending those requests. it is a very difficult budget climate and so the role for civil society and for constituents in making the case that these are cost-effective investments, that these are not just esoteric distance issues of foreign policy, but that they are very related to the foundation we are trying to build for our kids here at home and a stable world that will made it easier for us to draw back our military presence in other and other things around the world. ..

with these countries, you know, in instances we disagree we are expressing that and so there is accountability. this is not the differences that ochered are differences that we air frequently and i think have made a lot of progress and then i want to make sure to correct the misimpression i heard a lot in a couple of the last comments perhaps just the nature being a u.s. official giving a speech about the importance of emerging

market democracies taking leadership on these issues, the case which i think is obvious to all of you i hope i didn't imply these countries were stepping up because the united states was asking or because the security council example is a good one when india and brazil and south africa, turkey, when these countries are on the security council, they are responsible for maintaining the national peace and security and it's a responsibility that they take very seriously and we may differ how to do that from time to time, but these are countries that want to step up to leadership roles. these are countries that want to see the security council reform for that reason they want to be part of the conversation and part of the enforcement apparatus. while my influences about what

we are doing and trying to build the partnerships and so forth the reason this conference is important searing the protection the the to perspective and how they see human-rights sitting in to the broad economic stabilization peace and security debate. i hope i see the transcript of the findings so i can take more back in terms of what we can do better. >> the papers and presentations and the discussions we've had i think show the complexity of the subject. there isn't a simple unified view how this works in your presentation was really offered a comprehensive view coming from this country which is an absent in this conference and we think you for bringing it to this conference and we will share with you all of the results of the discussions. >> thanks for being with us. [applause]

i think we are ready for democrats and republicans to get the country foreign ministers met today in berlin to debate the scope of the mission in libya. nato's secretary-general told reporters afterwards that he was confident that allies would provide more strike aircraft to combat the forces on the ground and protect libyan civilians.

his remarks are 15 minutes. >> good afternoon. the secretary-general will start with a short introduction and then we will be happy to take a few of your questions. secretary-general? >> thank you very much. good afternoon. we have just completed two meetings with partners. yesterday our focus was on the way ahead in libya and transition in afghanistan. today we've taken forward our political and practical cooperation with georgia, ukraine and russia. afghanistan remains nado's most important mission. the foreign ministers discussed yesterday our enduring

partnership with afghanistan. this is the framework which nato is building its long-term engagement with afghanistan which goes beyond the day our combat role in this and our meeting and nato and afghanistan began to chart the path of how to take this partnership for word. partnerships are a vital part of nato's work, and this morning we approved a new set of rules to improve the way we do business with those nations that share an interest that income to begin to international security. our partnership menu is all pretty extensive but from now it will be richer as we intend to

expand the scope for cooperation the berlin partnership package proved today would allow us to work on more issues with more partners in more ways. that is a win-win for all of us. we also held a fruitful meeting with our colleague from georgia. we reaffirmed our support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of georgia. we thank georgia for its substantial contribution to our operation in afghanistan and welcomed its strong performance in defense reform. this year will be key for putting forward more space reforms, and we look forward to progress on that front.

we also met with the ukrainian foreign minister. ukraine is valued partner which contributes slightly to our operations and the presence of the minister at the meeting with libya partners yesterday confirm the policy of the engagement. we also discuss key issues of our distinctive partnership including cooperation on emerging security challenges. and we concluded today with a meeting of the nato russia council and by happy to report that the nato russia council is in good shape. it's a solid agenda where we devoted much time to discussing

current issues especially libya. such consultations are exactly what the nato russia council is about, a transparent dialogue with no taboo. in this spirit we also deliver on the agenda we said at last year's summit. the 29 foreign ministers declared the nato russian helicopter from afghanistan and operational with germany as the lead a nation. this is good news for the nato russia council. we are taxing together the challenge of stabilizing afghanistan, but most importantly of course, this is good news for afghanistan. its forces will benefit from this valuable equipment to

improve the security of the afghan citizens. we also adopted a new nato russia action plan for terrorism to do with a common challenge that concerns the citizens and we address prospects for missile defense cooperation, this important exchange will continue with vigor in the coming months. so now i'm happy to take your questions. >> please introduce yourself and organization >> has there been any progress in getting a lot of ddt additional aircraft you need in libya to convince missions to succeed with participation and what are your views of the letter issued by france, u.k. and the u.s.? >> yesterday overall our

commanders to have the assets the need but they also request a number of precision fighter aircraft. we have indications that the nation's will deliver what is needed but this isn't a new conference so i'm hopeful that we will the necessary assets in the very near future. the united states participation i can inform you that the united states already participates in the operation and contributes

with critical capabilities while nato is in the lead of this operation but as you all know the united states is a very prominent ally and in that capacity the united states also contributes to our operations. finally, on the letter from president obama, president sarkozy and prime minister kim nm. i think the letter reflects the unity of purpose and determination of nato allies with the unity we express yesterday in our libya statement. yesterday nato foreign ministers made clear the military objectives of the mission in libya the first the end to all

attacks and threats of attacks against civilians. second, the withdrawal of all of the forces to paris and third and immediate humanitarian access and we strongly endorse the call by the contact group to leave power. so nato is determined to continue its operation for as long as there is a threat against the libyan civilians. and it is important to imagine that threat disappeared. >> is there any chance or interpretation of the u.n.

resolution in 1973 to get boots on the ground? >> no. >> this issue hasn't been discussed and it isn't mandated by the even resolution 1973 and i haven't heard any requests of the commencement to that resolution. yesterday they said that of the international nato had exceeded the mandate of the u.n. resolution and it's a very dangerous for the international politics what you think about that statement? thank you. >> we had a very, very positive exchange of views today. russia has clearly stated that

nato's operation is legitimate. it takes place in accordance with u.n. security council resolution 1973. i have to stress that in the conduct of the operation we do not go beyond the text of the spirit of u.n. security council resolution 1973 on the contrary. we implement -- we are implementing the security council resolution and strict conformance the with both the letter and the spirit of that resolution. >> swiss radio. >> schweitzer apply also to the

embargo and how comfortable are you with the ongoing discussions about the weapons? >> also as regards the enforcement of the embargo we are implementing the u.n. resolution in st. come for mincy with -- conformance with that resolution. we stand in germany completely on both on libya. >> yeah. all nato allies are on board. we take as you know all decisions by consensus. we decided to take full responsibility for the operation by consensus. yesterday we issue a joint

statement by consensus as always. so it is the united allies. >> i think we have time for two more questions. >> taking on the missile fields you just said we addressed the prospect for the missile. has there been any concrete progress during these days or at least during the last weeks? >> of dialogue within the framework of the nato russia council. it's obviously a challenging job. it's quite a new thing to develop such a common missile defense architecture yet we haven't agreed on how to build

the architecture but it is about the common objective, namely the protection, the protection of populations in russia as well as in nato countries, protection against the real threat, missile threat from the nato side our position is very clear we are thinking about tools, support systems, the nato system and the russian system but with a common objective so these two systems should coordinate and cooperate, exchange data and thereby make it the overall architecture much more effective. >> one last question.

>> mr. rasmussen, the main reason for the operation in libya is protecting civilians, so why doesn't it stand up for civilians in yemen and syria, and don't you think that that operation creates the situation where the humanitarian regimes are motivated to obtain the weapon of mass destruction as the guarantee from the foreign intervention? thank you very much. >> we have taken action in libya because of the u.n. security council took the historic decision to adopt the resolution that lives up to the responsibility to protect, the responsibility to protect civilians against brutal and systematic attacks from their

own government, their own regime and we operate in accordance with the framework of that u.n. security council resolution. the u.n. security council resolution applies to all countries and the u.n. resolution mentions regional organizations like nato, so we feel the responsibility to purchase a paid in the implementation of that security council resolution. so this is the reason we took action in libya to live up to the u.n. security council requested. >> thank you very much indeed. have a good weekend.

>> congressman ron paul gave a talk in manchester new hampshire about the economy, budget deficits and the constitution. devin you was new hampshire institute of politics. congressman paul was considering a run for the presidency in 2012 and he's expected to announce his decision next month. this is just over an hour. >> good evening. it's my privilege to introduce

the author and congressman dr. ron paul. dr. paul served in the house of representatives for over 20 years and is one of the nation's leading defenders of the free market, limited government and strong family. born and raised in pittsburgh pennsylvania one of dr. paul's early this achievement is becoming a high school state champion of the 220 art . a graduate of duke medical school dr. paul's career was focused on madison. he served as a surgeon in the united states air force and has delivered over 4,000 babies over the course of his medical career. an expert on financial policy congressman paul is currently serving as the chairman of the financial services subcommittee on domestic monetary policy. from this position he worked out control spending, taxes and defend the constitution. congressman paul has run for president in 1988 and 20008. the 2008 campaign had heavy support from college students and attracted both national and world wide attention in which he raised over $35 million was able

to claim 35 delegates. in addition to his medical and political achievements dr. paul was a "new york times" best selling author of several books and will soon be releasing a new work entitled liberty defined. finally congressman, was the honorary chairman of the campaign for liberty. the national organization dedicated to promoting and defending individual rights of holding the constitution, protecting free markets and promoting a strong pro-american foreign policy. and now it is my pleasure to present to dr. ron paul. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. appreciate that very much. a lot of enthusiasm. i like that. before i get start i would like to introduce a couple of people with me today.

my wife, carol. [applause] and jessie is sitting down here. he's been marking on the campaign these also married to our granddaughter. [applause] but it's nice to be here and it's a great place to come when people would like to hear about ideas and i've been interested in that for a long time, and this suggested topic for tonight would be to deal with monetary policy. well that's an easy subject. monetary policy is pretty interesting because it involves everything. you have to deal with foreign policy if you're going to talk about monetary policy because it costs money and every war of his and fought for inflation, destruction of the currency. so, could it be possible we are doing that again? and also, if you have a domestic policy of welfare well, that

costs money, too and how do you finance it? the federal reserve and on the trade policy is very much involved. but i might tell you for a minute how i got interested in these ideas. i wasn't much interested in politics when i was in high school or in college. i think the only thing -- the only time i was interested in politics in college is in 1956 when there was a suez canal crisis and i got worried i was going to get drafted and i was so happy eisenhower said no, leave it alone we are not going over there be heavy enough and i agreed with that and so i was fortunate i didn't get drafted for 56 and taken out of college. but just a few years later in 1962 during the cuban crisis i was taken out of my medical training and was put into the military. and that ended up with the surging in the military for five years. but the string the medical

training some of my extra time was spent studying and treating economics. it seemed to fascinate me that there was another explanation of economic policy other than what i had been taught in college, and there was my introduction to austrian free-market economics, and i did come across the book by hyak road to serfdom, but in 1970 when the event that was predicted by the austrian economist that of the old standard would break down because there was such abuse, stephen of the brentonwood was established in new hampshire, it wasn't long in during because it broke down because it was deeply flawed, and the was the end of any link of the dollar to gold in 1971. now, my motivation than was to

speak out because this was a confirmation of the free-market economists predicted and lo and behold, it became the monitor system collapsed and we had a bad decade, we get stagflation, high inflation rates and economy. but what bothered me most of the time is the day after it was announced it was announced on sunday night, august 15th, 1971. the chamber of commerce loved it and it was in closing the price controls high tariffs, 10% tariffs on every bit of input absolutely opposite of everything the free market would want us to do but the chamber of commerce loved it and the stock market loved it and i thought there something to become something awfully bizarre what's going on. we are going in the wrong direction that's when i decided i would speak out and the

vehicle for me was to speak out in a political sense and congressional race, but on a felt very comfortable about doing that because i knew not much would come at it and i keep practicing medicine but my wife warned me and i said how can it be dangerous? you might get elected during this stuff. i assured her that wouldn't be possible because i wasn't going to play the role of the santa claus would you want come here it is and i really didn't have confidence. i was cynical and thought there wouldn't be anybody out there the would listen to that message that she was less cynical and thought maybe they would respond in a positive way. so, that is one danger you have when you put your name on about what you have a rescue might get elected so you have to be a little bit careful, but anyway, it did lead to the double career

so although i was in congress for four terms i was restless and frustrated and went back home and wanted to practice medicine and did that for 12 years and then got interested in because i was still fascinated with how monetary policy affected about everything that we do. it's not that monetary policy is the most important issue for me because liberty is my most important issue. my goal in life is to do whatever i can to preserve that entity called liberty which is what i believe made this country great because we had been given the maximum amount of liberty of any country before and believe me, i think if we would have followed the direction of our constitution and protected our liberties we would be a lot better off today. [applause]

the when you think about defending liberty we can look to the constitution it's pretty darn good. i've decided the document itself is secondary. it's good to have a document. we should have will fall and should be keen on follow the rules lot. but we have a document called the constitution everybody goes to congress and it seems like nobody knows what they're doing. everybody takes the same oath in extremes. most of them believe their following the constitution. you know, today with the new congress there's a new rule any time you pass of the law to become any time to introduce legislation you have to cite the portion of the constitution to get the authority to do what you're doing. that doesn't help. they cite the general welfare calls. we can do anything we want. the interstate commerce clause. what have they been doing with

that? anything you want. and then they cite the end of article 1 section eight the things we are allowed to do but they don't pay attention that the and it says you can write any necessary to enforce article 1, section 8 but they dissect that and say we are running of the law because it is necessary and proper to do so so the constitution hasn't restrain people from doing what we've ended up with. we have a welfare state that it's not authorized in the constitution. we have a monetary system that disobeys the constitution so it hasn't worked, and i think it was adams that said it won't work unless you have a moral people, and if you have the in more people will send officials to washington and they are tolerated to not follow the law,

the constitution won't do us any good. but i feel we've reached this point but what i see happening right now is a growing number of people that are concerned and starting to say we've had enough and we should have a different approach and we can't people believe to let people go along and say the constitution is a breeding living document and we have to adapt it but don't bother to amend it just do whatever you want and justified because it's so unnecessary and we don't have time to amend the constitution. i think about the war issue especially on the constitutional issue. this is something i've worked on for so many years. there's too many, and why are we doing this? i was aware of world war ii, the korean war teachers left the school and didn't come back and then there was the vietnam war and in that decade i was in the service i didn't go to vietnam

and korea was declared, the imam and we would fight the war constantly. who starts the war? where does the authority come from? it's supposed to come from the people through the congress and a vote for a declaration of war and i didn't like what happened in vietnam. i ended up being in congress when we were getting ready to go into iraq and was important to me that i do what i could to hold the congress accountable so i was on the international relations committee as i am now there was the resolution to give the authority to the president to do this. so i introduced a resolution to declare war in the committee and said i'm not going to vote for the war but if you want to go to format you should declare, get everybody behind and we will come together, the people behind

it and get it over with, and of course nobody voted for it and they said the chairman of the committee at that time said that congressman paul, you should ignore that because that part of the constitution is an anachronism. we don't follow that anymore. and i got to thinking that's a about the way they look at the whole constitution. maybe the gold and silver tender is anachronism and we don't fall for that for sure, so it is the lack of respect for rule of law and sending people there that either don't understand what the constitution is supposed to mean or they don't have the character to follow it and we have ended up with a mess, constant war and escalating expansion of the welfare state, and we are flat out broke. the technical declaration of a country that's bankrupt is when

you can't honor your commitment and money so we were technically insolvent and on tv, august of 1971 but because there has been a tremendous amount of trust placed in the us, in our money and wealth and military, people have instead of rejecting it and demanding we go back to sound money, the ticket and converted and said the dollar even though it isn't backed by gold we will use it for gold instead and people take the paper money and put it in central banks and use it as a reserve and it has given us a chance to live way beyond our means. there's nothing to hold us in check so when you're tempted to blame all of those foreigners for doing stuff to us there's a lot of responsibility right on us because we have been spending too much money, and when we come up short please print out the money as long as they take that counterfeit money the better it is for us so we have had a

pretty good welfare in the last 40 years but not in the last ten it's been going down for ten years. in 71 there was still a lot of wealth created, but now the debt is so great, the same old cliches and the same old policies of getting out of the recession by spending more money and printing more money and the business climate picks up again it isn't working this time, so we are in a different era. it is a much more serious era. we've had the financial bubble crash and it was anticipated and predicted by economists but now what we are facing is the dollar crisis, the collapse of the currency and when that happens its worldwide because of devotee holds it in the reserve bank's and even to the commodity prices are going up on interest rates are starting to creep up and the markets we serve the stock market might be going up but

very shaky because when you look what's happened to the housing market there's a lot of problems there and it's expected not to be solved we got into this mess because we spent too much money. we borrow to much of a regulated too much into the monetize everything. so they finally said yes this is really serious. we have to do something about this to get our house in order. so the increase in spending, increased the deficit and increase the borrowing, increased the regulations and increased the printing of the money and that was supposed to solve the problem. it's like a drug addict out of his mind with drugs, and the alcoholic feels a little bit better. they feel better but what happens is you finally kill the patient if you don't get them

off the addiction to live beyond our means. individuals can't live beyond their means. we are called to task and live within our means and that is what we are witnessing today. what we see is a solution is first looking to the traditions because it isn't likely have to invent something new, we don't have to say we have this intervention keynesian economy and money and it's been an experiment for all these years. they've had experience for centuries on this and experience with tierney and authoritarianism for centuries. we have only had a short example of an experiment through liberty, not perfect but through liberty by the constitution that we followed created the free prosperous country in the history of the world and we have rejected it. we have failed to defend those

principles. it had created -- of the way i look at this is it created so much wealth wealth became the driving force the material benefits for all we cared about so when people come to washington they are there to just defeated the luft and you can get away from it for a long time because we are so wealthy but in doing that and ignoring the principles of the sound of money and the limited government and property rights, finally the productivity goes down and you run out of the goods and services you can spread around so just passing another law because people losing their jobs and they don't have houses and all right, more people on food stamps, more free medical care and education and i can go on and on thinking that's going to be the solution and it isn't. what we have to do is restore confidence in the free society. we have to understand what it is and know that it involves most

of what we knew an hour or traditions. the founders and something about inflation. that's why i said only gold and silver. you cannot print money and they knew about celebrities and personal liberties or foreign policy and said stay out of these alliances and no adventures on, stay at home, defend the country but trade with people and be friends with people but still that the internal affairs of other nations and we totally ignored it, and now i were president has become more arrogant every time we get a new president. this particular president says about the war we don't even have to tell you about going to the war now that we are in another war in libya now not that we didn't have enough on our hands, we had iraq and afghanistan, we constantly bombed pakistan and they get annoyed about that, and like we would if they were doing it to us.

so now we are going over into libya and participating there and we've already spent a billion dollars the last couple of weeks just in libya and we don't have any money. i mean, it's insane what's happening. we've got to protect our interest. how many of you have an interest over in libya that you need us to go over there? if you have interest in libya media got to go over there and protect them. [applause] but it will come to an end. you think the message of afghanistan would be so loud and clear. the soviet system was brought down over afghanistan. that was the final blow. they broke down and the system collapsed for economic reasons. so i lived through and was very much aware of the cold war. the cold war ended with a

whimper. we didn't have to fight the soviets because they have an economically flawed system and we have an economically flawed system fortunately we are not as authoritarian as the soviet system was that we are becoming more authoritarian all the time and that bothers me, and the tool that is used by those who want to move towards authoritarianism always use fear so if there is any reason to be fearful, scare the people and they will do our bidding and there's a lot of reason to have been concerned on 9/11 which we were and should have been and know what was the cause from that but because of the fear, what did we do right afterwards? a week or two afterwards we had the patriot act passed, huge legislation attacking and making sure we are going to get the terrorists, it was attacked on you, destroying the fourth

amendment saying if we watch every single american and now we start prodding and putting our hands down and fingers down at little girls and airports we are going to be safer? we have given up too easily come by here to after 9/11 you have to give up some of your liberties for your safety, and i don't believe that. i don't think you should ever give up any liberty to live safely. [applause] besides, i have such confidence in the free society i think a pretty good way for almost bcts to fully understand the second amendment and -- [applause] but you know, the stage was set i said before and i probably won't go into detail but our foreign policy has a lot to do with the reason people want to

come over here and kill us it's not because we are free and prosperous, but we had already lost our way because the responsibility of security on the airline's was the government already and they said never resist a hijacker and pilots were not allowed to have guns so it's setting the stage and was perfect for those who wanted to do with the did. but in a free society the airlines would be treated more like an armored car that picks up the money. the of guns and protection and they protect the money better than the people. the airline should be responsible, then the rules on violations and what we do for safety would be so different, wouldn't be the government doing this thing but once we become totally dependent on the government always will do is cost a lot of money, ruin our civil liberties and not achieve

anything especially if we don't look at our foreign policy. so obviously on that few days after 9/11 it's not easy because of the political pressure to vote against the patriot act. i thought it was an atrocious piece of the legislation. so we are now -- [applause] we make attempts to get rid of it and change some of the things but it doesn't happen, the momentum is strong. the people of the country decided there's too much of that we don't want responsibilities and all this war monitoring overseas and we can be made safe a lot differently now. today we have a president who took us to the war and said the reason i didn't go to the

contras is i got my authority from the united nations. where did that happen? it started with truman. but i have a solution for that. i would like to get my bill passed that says we don't we just get out of the united nations? [applause] so, we are dependent on internationalism in the worst sense. a free-market person doesn't distain internationalism or gaullism. it can't be internationalism controlled by international government. here we of the imf and the world bank and the wto and nafta and kafta and all these international government organizations. on a recall all of those organizations entangling alliances i just assume stay out of all of them. [applause]

how does it get financed? we borrow money, tax people, we can't tax more because the economies are we keep on the attack now. so the taxes even if they try to raise revenue by raising taxes they are not going to. not only will they just weaken the economy and be less productivity. it just drives more people into the underground economy because they are trying to survive and take care of their family and that is what would happen treat our credit is still pretty good. i don't understand how we deserve credit and the rest of the currency aren't much better so when if you compare our money and our dollar to the euro keating to will be saved by two can dollars in the euro? no, that isn't going to help much at all. there's a limit to how much

borrowing. very definitely the chinese are not borrowing as much or about treasury bills as they used to. it's not like they are cutting them off because they don't want to cause a dollar crash that they are not buying as many said it will start playing a less which means interest rates will be pushed up. so the only thing left for the government to do is work with the federal reserve to take this debt and monetize it and that is create money out of their and as far as i'm concerned that is counterfeit and we shouldn't be putting people in jail today and in prison and people today to look to the cutting of gold and silver which is constitutional and legalizing the counterfeit of the government, the charge people to deal with sound money and then made the charges of

fraud interest charges and counterfeiting because they want to use gold and silver as money but paper money that's counterfeit money and that's fraud and that is unconstitutional. but i tell you i am convinced it is going to come to an end because there is a limit no paper currency lasted long periods of time and this one is 40 years getting near the last legs. that is a major crisis when that happens because just spending the money -- we were down there this week with two big bills, the cr and the budget has a bit of information, i didn't go for the continuing resolution, didn't vote for the budget because i don't think it will do anything to solve the problem. [applause] >> this year the national debt is going to go up $2 trillion, and they are talking about

30 billion-dollar cut in the cr which wasn't real, it was all fictitious and it's nothing. that's why this will have to come to an end. we don't know exactly when. there was no way you could predict it. there was no way to know the day the housing bubble would burst. we knew it was coming and it did. and the dollar, it will be some event somewhere in the world unknown to us now that will finally just motivate people to get out but they are slowly getting out of the dollar. people don't want to run to other currencies but where are they running right now? by ansel fer coins, a few people buying in gold. the dollar one time was 120 of an ounce of gold and not as 100 of an ounce of gold almost.

this is i think the record high right now. not the high price of gold record low for the value of the dollar. that is what is happening so there is a limit to that and there is a pretty good evidence that there has never been a war fought without inflation even in ancient times because they would inflate by clicking claims or diluting the metals to become metals and undermine the value of the currency to fight the war. today it's more sophisticated because they just created -- we talk about printing money. they don't actually print -- de print a lot but that's not it. they use a computer, and right now we are starting to get some real evidence. we have a token victory on finding more about the fed in the last six months than in the whole time since they've been in existence. we didn't get out of the fed bill passed the we got it partially past, and i am still

working on the fact that we need a full audit of the federal reserve to know everything they are doing. [applause] if the american people knew, and the stories are coming off, the shenanigans going on and who got the bailout from the people that ripped us off and made all this money on the speculation and all the derivatives market, they made their bucks, then they go bust and the tax payers get stuck with their worthless assets and the treasury bottom as well as federal reserve. they buy these assets and the guys making all the money got bailed out, but that the economy gets weak, people lose their jobs and their mortgages, their houses, it is not geared toward the average person. this is geared towards taking care of big banks, corporations of the military-industrial complex, will bankers.

we have now evidence that it could be up to between 30 to 50% of all trillions of dollars they used to bail out in the crisis the said passed out went to overseas banks. there's one bank that got a big bailout. one-third of the bank was owned by kaufman speed. that's how we've seen it is. we have to call on the markets and take care of all this thing, but they are doing it at the expense of the average person because the penalty is paid with higher prices and if any of the prices have started to go out think tax, tax, inflationary, the value of the currency, gasoline and everything else, it's going to go up a lot more and bernanke keeps saying i can take your care of when it's there i know that very instant to take the money back and raise the interest rate.

well, he doesn't know. he was the same one that said there was no housing bubbles of he's going to get us out of this mess. there's no way that's going to happen but just changing the manager of the federal reserve to get a better manager of the system that's not going to work. i don't imagine you could find much worse, anybody worse than bernanke but it won't help because it's the system we have to change and it's the reason my position on the fed is and the federal reserve entirely. [applause] so, in memphis philosophy that i talk about and believe strongly in it's an american tradition and its embedded in our constitution if we did follow it but it's pretty clear cut. nonintervention foreign policy. people say you're an

isolationist. i want to trade with people and visit with people but to just not fight with people and necessarily that it would be nonintervention, and that would be one part i think would be so important. the other of course is based on free markets. the free-market system the transactions are voluntary control of the contracts are important, you have sent money. today though instead of the government protecting and enforcing our contract the government is always breaking our contract and imposing the rules and regulation on the contract, and how about property, they're supposed to protect the value of the private property to make our decisions but just try to use your property you have to get permits not only from your local and state people you have to go to the federal government and talk to about ten agencies in washington before you can even use your own land that get

charged a lot of taxes and they take away your land so there's times i.t. we just payment for our land. we need to take our property back and say it's our property if we aren't hurting anybody else just leave us alone. [applause] - one area many conservatives get lackadaisical is on the personal issue. i like to look at personal liberties and economic liberties as being the same and i think the founders did. they didn't have liberty over here for how you spend your money but not your personal habits. it's all one thing. the problem with saying which of the liberal they say well know if you just -- if you don't have rules and regulations on the redistribution people are going to fall through the cracks and there won't be enough to go around, so we have to make sure we take care of them. but the conservative comes along and says that if the of total liberty they might do some things i don't approve of.

but the rule list it's your life, you can wasted or you can use it, but it's up to you to what you want to do with it, just as long as you don't hurt anybody else but what you personally or what to do with your property, and then it's none of the government business. [applause] ..

you can have no religion or a pot of religion, as long as you don't force it on people were allowed to have a bureaucracy. [applause] and we know that we shouldn't battle with her intellectual life. we know that government shouldn't meddle with their religious sites in our religious life is to do something important like eternity and publish them to get to make her choices but we do not matter. but then when it comes to drinking raw milk you adjust the government tell you whether you can drink raw milk or what you smoke and drink, the woolworth's. anything that goes into a mouth of the for grabs at all levels of government and bake until a period and i say no. [applause]

and these habits, whether they are eating habits are smoking habits or whatever, these problems can be solved with private property rights, like allowing restaurants to make their own rules rather than coming and enclosing people done in seeing somebody lit a cigarette you're closing us down. and i don't like obvious that the cigarettes and i don't like drugs or anything, but i tell you what, i don't like those drugs. they really don't like the drug war. i think it's much more dangerous. [applause] de la hoya people as died in the drug wars that that have died from the drugs. as a matter fact more people die from prescription drugs and illegal drugs, so they're not doing much good by having the drugs legalized either. but we have a tremendous task ahead of us and we don't have

the same attitude we have been they wanted to make a call illegal. you know, that's pretty good. they work for 50, 67 years to get the country to agree alcohol is bad stuff. we will stop people from practicing bad habits what do they do? the amended the constitution. can you imagine anyone today suggest that we have to amend the constitution to run the drug war. drug wars started basically in the early 70s and they've spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the drug war. we have more prisoners than anyone else in the world and we have a lot of people who report in these prisons that were nonviolent and they come out very violent. so i say that it's time we allow it to make their own choices and suffer their consequences as tonight at choices and can't come to the government.

[applause] freedom is something that we all believe in and in and want to protect. freedom was tested best in this country, better than any country in the world and yet today slipping away. it's an early experiment. most of history has been run by tyrants. most people in washington are authoritarian. in some areas they are authoritarian and they want to tell other people what to do when they don't think their job is but one thing and that is protection of liberty. that is what we should be doing. [applause] but we as a people as last confidence in freedom only works and we've been taught so on that there'll be so many people suffering and there'll be no medicare, no food and people

falling through the cracks and on and on. but you know, when a society decide the very media to be taking care care of by government, that's just a couple people. you can't be against it. nobody is. they say we must take from you and take care of the few people every year than it somehow. so what happens if it endorses an idea that is destined to grow and after 30, 40, 50 years to destroy or to the deep and those will become dependent grow and grow. today we have 42 million people on food stamps and everybody depends on the government now for their medical care. and you know, there was a lot of talk and a lot of complaints and i'm sure this crowd is something not too happy with obamacare, but we should at least have the chance to opt-out of those systems. i'd like to be able to opt-out of all those government

programs. [applause] the other thing that i tell a lot of people, especially the young people if they get worried that this is not too radical in the air this story in order to solve the problem you're realistic and it got to be willing and get up in line. everybody has to sacrifice. and i just don't think that's necessary because if you got your freedom back, you didn't have to pay taxes and the government was out of your life, why would you -- why would that be a sacrifice. it's the people who are receiving from government, the people who receive the bailout, military-industrial complex and all those foreign expenditures if they are the ones who have to sacrifice, but i don't think the average person would have to sacrifice anything in order to get by. but you know, today i think we are seeing some changes, very

positive changes. resorting to recognize we have a mess. people search in shock about the federal reserve in endless wars. they're sick and tired of reading in the news about is participating in torture and assassination of american lives than said to be illegal. people hear this and that getting tired of it. but i believe there's a new generation coming alive right now that believes differently and that we're moving into a very positive era. we move into an era that we're going to reject the government in any state where they take care of us because they're not going to be able to. even those who have been receiving entirely from the government are starting to realize what's going to happen because they're looking to you can't add $2 trillion debt increased every year. once you see prices going up in

interest rates going up, that's going to be accused tax. people know about a domain very pleased when i come to the university and i go whenever i get a chance because the changes will come from the universities. the changes will come when you change ideas. the politicians who cannot defend to solve your problems. you have to do it in an intellectual climate. we have to repeal teen cns. that's what we have to do. [applause] we have talked a lot about a revolution in the revolution in ideas. and when a true revolution comes, it is intellectual and the university invades the culture and eventually invades the political -- the political system. but it won't be a partisan thing because it's only republicans we have in congress today are going to solve our problems.

that's not going to happen. it's going to be a revolution in ideas. and the idea will be the ideas of liberty. and that means that for this to work you have to build coalitions, not compromising anything. the building coalitions are all across the spectrum. some believe in liberty's, some oppose the foreign intervention. other believe you need to bring all these people together and say this is one entity. if liberty that we have to suspend because the whole purpose for my personal viewpoint for liberty is for us personally to work for excellence and virtue. that should be it: life here that's my goal in life. but it's best done in a free society and that means that liberty is the goal. yes we once had many of the foreign policy and all these policy changes, but all those policies come together in any common sense is the goal is to

recognize that you are an entity, a very important to teach. you have a right to your life, right to your liberty and you have a right to be left alone. and those rights do not come from the government, but come in the god-given way. if we recognize that, i am convinced we can solve all of our problems. thank you. [applause] thank you. [applause] i do believe we'll have time for some questions, is that correct? if it is the case, i need a mic or make sure i hear the question so i can figure out what the answer is. >> .or paul, i want to point out when someone died is nonconstitutional.uses country know the supreme court upheld that? i like to say, please explain why you agree with that ruling.

and with those they were zukin addressed the concept of thinking of themselves. i found a hidden loophole and the electoral college process that is i to along to you do not pass it up to your wife here. >> she will make sure every day. [laughter] >> okay, question over here. the >> s., dr. paul, i learned that we used to be a public now after tacking to most college students they think were democracy. number one i think we need more education on what we should believe. but my question to you is, how do you think we could get back to making the federal government like it was intended to be the state further south tee. >> she asked how do we get this stuff done and how do we work are too small in limited government and also emphasize

the fact that we aren't in democracy, but we are a republic. when we have a deep understanding of those terms in our history and the constitution and we get rid of about beekeepers and that everything the federal government is doing and we'd all be safer and happier. [applause] but i think your point about democracy is important because all the president used it so carelessly. we have democratic elections and that doesn't make us a democracy. democracy is a big leadership -- the dictatorship of the majority and rights. but even the democratic process, if you bend a little bit on the definition of democracy, but was one of the major excuses of going over into iraq? spread american democracy. we've got to teach them how to be good democrat. and by the way, one of the good

things they got the rebels and libya to set up i mean, we rolled in business a week or two and they had been set up a central bank. but no, we go overseas, kill a lot of people. a lot of our people get killed and were going to pose on them this doj can msm idea that we force you to be good people and at the same time even the democratic process here is very weak in this country because if any of you have come to the conclusion that there's not a lot of difference in the result, whether you have republican or democrat, you say where the alternative? you hardly have one. it's legal you can start the party, but if you get on ballot bz? communigate debate, get the recognition? no, it's all shine. so we die to spread democracy where he think we could learn a lot about taking care of her own business at home first.

[applause] >> thank you, representative paul. i have a question about the money going to libya with the federal reserve. i was disturbed when i read that on your texas straight talk last week. why will no one at the federal reserve be held accountable for that? >> because the federal reserve is a government unto itself. they are very, very powerful, but they are also on the defensive, more so than they've ever been before. they've been doing everything in secret, but fortunately for the two lawsuit by bloomberg and fox that they did for some of the information out. because we have ahmad occasion as you're getting more information in july, it does call on me with some of the responsibility in the committee to bring this to light and we will do our very best. but unfortunately, it's going to

be very, very difficult. they are very powerful. and if you think about it, they have more economic political clout than the whole commerce. they spent $3.3 trillion on those they allowed. you know, the congress spend 850 million. and it's all done in secret. yes they should be held accountable. and some of the stories coming out here on who is gotten these loans, they should be and hopefully can be, but the odds of them been held accountable, i wish i could be more optimistic. the best way to hold them accountable is as the system falls apart that we intellectually blame them. they've had a free ride. they've always said if the economy is doing well come in the is managed the money supply rate. interest rates are what they should be and that's why we have

a growing economy. but then the economy would turn down because of the federal reserve and the fed would come in and say well, what we need to do is print more money and rescue people who are in trouble. and they generally got credit for getting us back out of the slump. but that's not going to happen anymore. they have to be blamed because they are responsible intellectually. the legal responsibility is another matter. i think we should pursue that, but i'm not very optimistic much will happen. >> congressman paul, thank you for speaking with us tonight. can you sure that's your your view on immigration? >> i can. i do have a little book coming out and it's called liberty defined and i spend a lot of time on immigration trying to work it out. it's really not one of the easy subjects to deal with because

you have -- and i start out saying they two extremes. you have an extreme libertarian view that says there should be no borders and people can come and go wherever they want. and then there's the other viewpoint you should have barbed wire fence within god and soldiers then you shoot anybody coming over. i don't expect either one of those. as a matter of fact, i just think the answer of the libertarian approach if we truly have a libertarian society and all the property was owned by private individuals, if it meant to be a pretty close society. the property owner would have to get permission, but that's not where we are today and it's not going to happen. but where we are today is we have a lot of illegal immigrants in this country. i have proposed legislation. my position is that they should not qualify for welfare. [applause] in texas -- in texas as a matter

of fact they come from mexico on a daily basis in the valley and go to public schools and go back. but that suicidal because the school several engraft, too. hospitals about to be closed down because they get free medical care. i work in economics for the welfare state encourages our people not to work. you know, if you didn't work and eat, people might take a job for $4 an hour. who takes a job for $4, $5, $6 if they can get a job on welfare. so the welfare system we can the economy. they're not as easy to take the jobs and then the welfare and use that, overall. i can bring my family and they get free medical care and free education. i'm also convinced if you have a free market economy and done many good read thriving. we would be looking for immigrants. you know, we would meet them and want them because you would need workers and it wouldn't be a

burden at all. under today's circumstances, many times we escape goat and say those mexicans come over here and they are causing all of our problems. as far as what i would do with how many 12, 15, nobody knows how many illegal immigrants are in this country. i don't believe in giving them amnesty and citizenship. at the same time, no matter how strongly you feel come you're not going to round up 15 and people and send them someplace because i've seen examples and a lot of them have lived their life here and are still legal. so that is not going to work. i would not give them citizenship. as a matter of fact, i think people coming over who gets his citizenship and you afterward transition is just a suggestion. if you and i had to wait 18 years before we could though, maybe they have to wait 18 years. but there's a big motive.

and now, for political reasons in lake to legalize them in a certain direction and i don't think that's right either. leave me, liberty would solve this problem because people wouldn't be as concerned if the economy was thriving and looking for workers. >> welcome to new hampshire. i've been reading a lot of legislation the past two years and have to say that our words and every bill i read makes me scratch my head. everybody should be wary and for other purposes. i applaud you and thank you in our previous representative didn't agree with you. you had obviously read the bill on a military base. every other bill i've seen says for other purposes.

can we get that out of the legislation for the purposes of those are for what their stated four. be my well, i have to look at the bill when they do that, but you're right. unfortunately, that the way they like things. it's just a matter of the individuals. you know, you try and educate your congressman and you run for congress and make sure you don't do it in things like that. >> i am wondering the fact that the federal reserve words that the interest rate four times a year, something like that. >> no, more often. >> you said earlier that interest rates will rise. how can they rise at the federal reserve hasn't set them? >> okay, interest rates are in a way that neither federal reserve constantly although lately

they've been rather stable because they are zero and they can't go any lower. so they are priced fixers. the worst thing you can do is to fix anything that will cause shortages and unique pricing. that's why socialism fails. you don't have a structure. one half of our economy is our money and they are fixing overnight interest rates. they don't excel the race. they don't sit there and say how much you're going to pay on your credit card. so for the big guys to get the deals, low interest rates. since the crisis has been over come the free money to the banks and the banks will buy treasury bills and make two or 3% and all of a sudden they are making a lot of money. the economy doesn't grow. they say we pay back all of our loans already. but they fix -- they take this authority they can fix overnight raids.

that means that the banks have to maintain reserves and what they can borrow and how much they have to pay if they go to the discount window. so that has a lot of influence. but the main flaw is that they engender lower interest rates at the market and that is why businessmen does the wrong thing investors and that's why you have financial bubble. but on a set time that portends the year with a sit down into the rate. there are certain times when he used to be every month they would change it, the interest rate. but that's one of the principles of a free market. you shouldn't do that. it helps the banks. but if your saver, with what if you are skittish and you put your money in a savings account and your elderly and want to protect your savings and don't want to invest in talks? you get what, 2% or one and? you know, at the same time, if

you at market interest rate, when interest rates, you know, if the person is saving that will adjust the interest rate. so the sabres get punished, which means you are messing up the whole capitalist system because savings are key to capitalism. you shouldn't be able to create so-called you shouldn't be able to create so-called you shouldn't be able to create so-called you shouldn't be able to create so-called and pass it out and have interest rates. when interest rates are low, that means there's no savings. we have very low interest rate under greenspan. at the same time, there was all the money. we were saving, so it's a distortion. they should be out of the business of fixing interest rates. they also should be out of the business at the doctor of them overnight. just make sure they can file the government debt. that's where the problem is. >> hello, dr. paul my name is

ben scott flynn if you can just bear with me for a moment. after 29 hours from south korea. i'm stationed in the military there and i just want to come here today to give you something and i want to to you i've been working for you since 2007 when i saw you cream rudy giuliani inactivates. inactivates. -- in that debate. [applause] i read some of your books and i hope you got some of them. they came here today like i said i've been campaigning for you, even though you're not in the oval office come on we all think you should be. [applause] and i just want to let you know when i meet people and talk about the point of liberty i believe in, people say yes some of those are great ideas. the economic liberty, educational liberty, liberty that happens with the green revolution so many young people

want. those things are tangible, they aren't here. how pointing them about? people aren't necessarily on board with what we're saying and they are on board with these voices of liberty, but how do we bring it about so they could -- so they can see it in their minds because it's not fair. hot remake and see a quiet i'm sorry, i don't have anything for carroll. are you here to announce today that you are going to run for president in 2012? [applause] >> thank you. >> you know, that's really the bottom line. the ideas are good and makes that and then what do we do about it? a lot of people say what do you want to do for tomorrow. should i run for congress, deface or this? the answer is do whatever you want. do what you have to do. do what you know how to do.

or obviously already doing something. everybody does something. by doing nothing you're doing something and that's probably wrong. last night to let me tell you, if you made it to this lecture here and you generally agree with it and if it's new to you, your life should be different. but your life should be different anyway if you accept these views because you are in a unique category because most people never care. you know, they might not care until a week or two before the election or something. everybody has a responsibility, more so when you have the trouble and you believe he knows the answers. it's still what can you do about it? an individual can run for office in support of their people, get an education come again to media, get into teaching. it might be just talking to your neighbors. you know, in the campaign we had

before, it was so spontaneous that i had never heard this term meet up groups. all of a sudden meet up groups row over the place. and i think there's something called facebook or something like that. i mean, there's an opportunity to spread messages. the internet is fantastic and it's so much more than when i was in college in the early years in politics that you can spread this message. the energy from young people is fantastic. but the particular job is going to be difficult. the one thing i like to work on in washington because i don't believe, you know, that legislatively we are all of a sudden going to see this change. i'm not going to get a law passed that says we will apology. the fed will abolish itself. we can as an education, medicine and money and that is keep the right to opt-out. if you're unhappy with educational system, we always,

whether in public schools are not come you always have to argue the case that you have the personal responsibility in the right to opt-out of the public education system. teach at home or teaching private schools. if we lose that, we lose an awful lot. people in washington would just assume not have the independent-minded people and homeschoolers and private schooling. [applause] in medicine, you know, give us a curing people say would like to opt-out. if we could just be able to opt-out. you know, there is big fuss about opting out of obamacare. can you really opt-out of medicare clinics i remember when my dad became 65 and he was annoyed because it's very hard to be self-reliant, but they always protect us our chance to do something else on her own.

so in medicine, it should be the medical savings account. everything you stand in medicine, take it off your taxes, you take it off yourself and the government. [applause] in the money issue at work and i have bills in and of things going on in the subcommittee about competition and currencies. just legalize your right to use currencies, gold and silver, which means -- which means in order to legalize gold and silver, you should never have to pay sales taxes on buying your money and you shouldn't have to pay capital gains tax in case your money goes up in value and then you can use your money is the current fee. we should legalize freedom. okay, one more question i believe. >> i was wondering, how should the u.s. react to human rights abuses quite >> i'm sorry --

>> egregious human rights abuses and genocides in foreign countries for a lot of people come about through crude intervention or not that's their liberty and their right to exist. >> yes, obviously those things go on, but our government coming in now, like rwanda, things are going on and we totally ignored it. i wouldn't -- our government should stay out of it. but calling attention to it and americans have been generous in helping people who have had problems. but to use force and violence to tax and poorest people in this country to go over and try to work out these problems, i don't believe we have the moral and legal right to do it. i don't think it generally works because even when you have a humanitarian and didn't and our governments government since the country is countries coming usually you're giving the factions a weapon because they use it against each other.

all foreign aid for whatever reason, whether humanitarian or not i think represents nothing more than taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to the rich people in poor countries who happen to be the teeters. [applause] but obama expanded the bush doctrine a little bit. bush says you can go to war because it prevented war. preventive war as far as i'm concerned is like aggression. he might be doing us harm someday? are going to bomb you and take you over. obama is taking it one step further. he is seen even for humanitarian reasons, at least the iraqis are going to come with a nuclear weapon and bomb us. you know, that is sort of fear mongering. obama says now, he might hurt some of our people and therefore we have to preemptively start a

war we don't even have to ask the congress. we are every you're getting worse i'm not. was there when my question behind you there? no, that'll do it and make thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> on behalf of the college, please take a small token of our appreciation. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> some of them go through and we use them on certain bugs. >> there you go. >> thank you for coming, dr. paul. >> i just read [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> white house national economic council. , gene sperling talked about the debt and deficit reduction plan and the upcoming debate over the debt limit. he spoke at a daylong economic forum hosted by the "financial times" and the bertelsmann foundation in washington d.c. this is 25 minutes. >> thank you. it is wonderful that along with tina board member you get wonderful introduction and i must say it is being published at penguin in the united states, the way bertelsmann in germany, so i'm very happy about that.

and i want to also give my greetings to listen on including teeny who so ably lead this organization. ladies and gentlemen, it is my great pleasure today to introduce the closing speaker, the cleanup hitter and i do remember once hearing an introduction that lucre, then the head of ibm gave to henry kissinger when he said here is henry kissinger, and manny needs no introduction. henry kissinger came to the podium in third thank you but your introduction was far too modest. so i will give a short introduction to gene sperling who doesn't need an introduction either. he catches cortical teeth in the 1988 dukakis campaign and on the staff of governor mario cuomo before joining the 1992 clinton campaign as its economic policy

adviser. during bill clinton's first term as president from 1993 to 1996, he served as a deputy you're of the newly created national economic council and adviser to clinton and director of the national economic council from 1996 to 2000. he played significant roles and let's put that into current context because it fits. he played significant roles in the 1993 deficit reduction act and the 1997 balanced budget agreement. so i guess we've got déjà vu with a difference. those who remember his service in the devastation does clinton administration and who particularly recall his effect it an efficient workaholic ways, the nickname gene the machine comes from that time and as counselor the secretary of treasury geithner, who thought this known as the bureau of gene. now he has to pull a genie out

of the bottle. he was also recognized for being able to merge politics, policy and press were in the way if you can as brad delong put it jeans best a nice talent is an extraordinary ability to make a substantive policy argument in a way that makes them intelligible and convince them to the message people and legislative people. you certainly need that talent now. gene sperling was recalled into government service by president depalma. he once again became director of the national economic council in january and assistant to the president for economic policy. so he's in the midst of this -- of this budget battle. today he comes directly to us from a meeting with the president of the white house and i'm sure he'll have some interesting and nice to share with us and i hope you're

willing to make some news. and if i may, there's a fine a of introduction. i read you a quote from gene sperling from two years ago when he noted the president has to find the right balance between fiscal discipline and dealing with real problems the country faces dirty set quotes, it's the ultimate wok and chew gum at the same time. you've got to show you can restore a sense of fiscal responsibility and yet be making gains on the country's greatest challenges like health care, energy and education. so two years later, gene sperling, we look forward to an update on the chew gum while walking challenge. thank you very much. >> and i do pass to the inimitable gillian tett. >> thank you for the introduction and thank you to all of you for managing the plan and thank you in particular for jean to coming out some time in

his schedule to talk to us today. many, many things i like you, but i'm going to stay with the issue i've been talking about a few minutes ago with the president, which is the speech he gave yesterday in the attempt to try and forge not just a new fiscal direction, but also some kind of plan in agreement going forward. given your experience and 93 and 97 feature of tiger tee not once, but twice on this, have you read the current mood? do think it's going to be possible to work with republicans who avert a showdown of the debt ceiling, but also to get some kind of sensible serious plan agreed in a reasonable timeframe? >> well, i think that is the $64,000 question. is adjusted for inflation, but first of all on the debt limit,

i think in the meeting the president had with leaders yesterday, there is a broad understanding that not extending the debt limit is just not an option. you cannot play chicken with the united states fiscal credibility this has been established since alexander hamilton time. it's one of the hallmark of the u.s. financial regime. you don't want to have a debt clock. i mean, it was one thing to have a countdown clock to will the government shutdown? you don't want to have a countdown clock to will america default on its obligations? nobody wants that. it's not responsible. no one should use the credibility of the united states a full credit as a bargaining

chip for any policy goal, no matter how sincerely they support that. so i think that does mean that we can assume that people will act responsibly and move forward in extending the debt limit. the second question asked, what can we do to create greater confidence that the united states is going to live within its means, that we are going to put ourselves on a path where added very minimum we stabilize our debt as percentage of income and give them confidence that the debt income will start coming down. and so i think that there's -- the president has felt very strongly that he had to put forward a plan and that there had to be very clearly a serious effort to move quickly to consider what could he done. and you know, there does create

a very big issue, which is, is there a chance they we can come together on the broad side that we have in terms of our division? and the second question is whether we're capable of not letting what we disagree on prevent us from making some fiscal discipline progress on what we do agree on. and i think that latter will certainly be part of the goal that vice president biden will face as he tried -- as we all try to bring together some form of negotiating process on deficit and debt reduction going forward. there's just no questions that's going to be a great challenge. it's going to be nice mentioning and 93 we had a successful debt reduction and those democrats only. 97 with a bipartisan balanced budget agreement and of course

in between was 1995 for we had a government shutdown. the thing i would remind people is 1997 really was the same actors. so it was capable. in 1995 i think i used to do crossfire with john kasich every month at least once. and yet we sat across the table from each other in 1997 as part of the negotiating team for the balanced budget agreement that even though i don't agree with everything he's doing as governor ohio and he doesn't agree with everything we are for, where friends and there's an element of trust those up there. so you have to have hope. just a point of where things can be as you're prepared for success and give success to chance or things can work out. in december after the election in november, we were working very hard to prepare for what could come out of the tax agreement. one of the things we work on in the obama team is what can we do

beyond just the issue of extending tax cut and high income? what we do that's helpful for for the economy? we spent a lot of time and came to the conclusion that a proposal for 100% expense team in the payroll tax that would be both good for the economy and there's a very good chance based on past statement by republicans could agree to. when we were working on this, people attending meetings of the real estate going to check e-mail and go home. i must've heard the expression 10 times. there's not going to be serious discussion during the lame duck and yet you ended up having a tax agreement that was successful. you got these two other elements and not even in the fed minutes, most reports the payroll tax cut has been a very important question against rising gas prices and very important to this economy. again, that was a bipartisan agreement added. are the odds of that were heavily, heavily discounted.

no less to go on and have "don't ask, don't tell," s.t.a.r.t. treaty. so you have to be prepared for success in bipartisan compromise, even when the prospects are uncertain because for governing and we have that obligation. >> well, we were talking this morning on the anthropology and sociology was going on. so i am very fascinated by this. i'm curious when you look at the tribal behavior around you and i think the backgrounds and tribal politics -- >> when people are reporting, those are her words, not mine. >> go ahead and repeat if you want. something i hear often from people in washington as compared to 93 or 97, the climate these days is more poisonous, more polarized. there is less stress and it's

really about trust and there was two years ago and that's one of the big obstacles to actually getting a sensible solution. it's not just about numbers or ideology. it's actually about anthropology what do you think about that? do think the climate is worse now? would it be harder to get a deal in 93 or 97? >> again, you've 93, 95 and 97. in a 95 he did have some of the same dynamics here. very deep divisions and it did turn out there wasn't a lot of agreement in 95, but again as i said some of the same people they are did find common ground at some point. there is no question that some of this is exercise is the voting trust. you know, i talked about the tax agreement.

we often have very fierce political battles with the senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell. but when there was a decision made that we were going to have an agreement, there was an element of trust and i can very much recalled after, you know, after having the vice president opened critical elements were there wasn't a completely clear transcript of what had been said. you know, we were told to go check to some of his votes and put things together. that would've been a time when people could gamed out. and instead, both of us had been in. and instead, both of us had been in. and instead, both of us had been in in the behavior on their side and our side was honorable and we were able in the behavior on their side and our side was honorable and we were able to work things out. now of course were back to having a lot of a lot of battles, but that does show you can create some of the trust

that can help us govern and i think there were a lot of phone calls between the president and speaker boehner. the differences and disagreements are strong. in the meeting we had yesterday, you really did see a lot of responsible talk about the need of everyone to try to find a way to not allow the debt limit to become a game of chicken or to do things that would be risky to our economy. so you have to really hope ultimately whatever the political pressures higher that the people and the leadership remember they are responsible for governing. i know that my sound a bit naïve, but again i've just given a cup of examples where people can work together against all odds. i'll give you another example. october 2008, you know, the democratic candidate for president barack obama and the

democrats in the house and senate held that a republican president in time of financial crisis because they realize what you're supposed to put politics to decide at the the border's edge to you also need to put politics to decide when you're at the edge of an economic crisis. and so, you know, it is worth maintaining one's optimism for these blending optimism with a healthy dose of skepticism. >> so what does all this mean for the economy? i mean, there's actually consumer concern about the debt, business concern and one thing that actually undermines confidence and prevents people from spending and investing. personally i've always been a bit cynical about that. do you think any of the budget debates have an impact on the economy? >> well, i would say that at

this moment i would not say that this was a main driver of the economy. and i don't know how much, you know, concerned about the future on fiscal issues is the fact been individual consumer family behavior at this point. what i do think that, you know, confidences they -- confidence is a special thing and it is something that those who are governing or in charge of economic policy have to take very seriously and not take for granted. and i think you are trying to preserve the confidence that exists in the united states. in times that has been difficult, and the united states is amending the safe even, even in a very ugly economy, often

the prettiest one in the room. and that is not something you ever want to take for granted. and that's why i think when you look it would to be to, ultimately you need a very comprehensive deficit reduction plan that is going to significantly move us in the direction of the debt that is climbing the percentage of our gdp. but because you're dealing with confidence, things that the president of the united states been willing to go out and propose a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan, the president being willing to work across the aisle, the president put in that front and center in the fiscal and national debate, even when it may be that gas prices are what its effect team on the minds of most american families shows a concern, a focus that i

think is important for economic confidence. and that is why i think while we ultimately should be aiming for it to deficit reduction plan, we also limit divided government with deep divisions in our visions of the economy need to look for every opportunity to do something good with confidence, inducing it shows we are capable of mustering the political well and finding common ground to start moving the deficit lower. >> what probability would you attach to getting a comprehensive package this year? >> i think it's pretty tough. i think if you had larry on, that all larry does is when you're in meetings with larry she says chances this will happen. i used to always tease him that

we are used to bake 35% to 40%. this is the larry summers principle. everyone should learn this. it is the scam is picking 35% or 40% odds of something extremely unlikely. everybody should try this. if you say everything has a 35% to 40% of something unlikely to have been two huge claim credit. look, i think it's very important that we be at the table and be having that discussion. i think that should be our ultimate goal. i think i should maintain some hope an optimist of that, but again i think we should also be looking to see if there are -- to not let what we disagree on keypress from searching for some common ground of what we could

agree on. the deficit reduction coveted reduction, restoring for protecting economic confidence is not an all or nothing endeavor. >> unemployment. where do you see that going? looking every to expect to see? >> well, you know, i mean, let me -- let me connect these two topics and go to that. for us, we were not apologetic about the fact while we speak 4 trillion deficit reduction that we were aiming for 12 years over 10 years because we do believe that as you are putting forward the deficit debt reduction you do need to do it carefully and do it in a way that does not inhibit what is still an emerging recovery that doesn't inhibit you from investing what we'll need to do

to compete. and when the future of the president says or that has two harsh reforms in things we should be strengthening like medicare or medicaid that we were ensuring doing something to control long-term cost growth. so everything we're doing and and this is important. when you get in the budget fights at times, people can start claiming that particular deficit target is the aim in itself for the end in itself. the band is a growing economy we shared prosperity that help support the fundamental values of the american economy is a place where everybody can move up, where there's a broad middle class. i mean, that is the fundamental goal. and ensuring fiscal discipline and confidence they were going to live within our means and controller debt as a percentage of income is a critical component, but it is a component of a strategy and you have to

have the balance together. in terms of unemployment, i don't think there's a lot of upside for people in my position, you know, making projections. it is a way cooler thing to do when you're on the outside, particularly if you're not on some kind of regular tv show was and they can come back and show you your wrong. i think the important thing though is i think the important thing is we are seeing a resilience in private-sector job creation. i think last month was very important. here you have -- here you had the issues of a supply disruption from japan. you have oil prices we've seen oil prices go from $3.11 per gallon pre-libya for egypt to

$3.79. and yet with all of that we saw 230,000 private-sector job growth. so i think you are seeing a resilience. i think the fact that the unemployment rate dropped overwhelmingly because of gains in employment as opposed to decreases in labor force participation, particularly encouraging. you wrote recently, i believe, about where we were on manufacturing compared to china. jobs wise, we are all is $200,000 manufacturing jobs up in the last 12 months. that has been a relatively unnoticed successful part of where this recovery is because the last time the united date gained overcoming outcome of close 200,000 jobs in a 12 month period was 1997. so i think there is a lot of