that we've seen so far. make no mistake about it. when you've had the kind of great recession that we've had, it even 200,000 private-sector jobs a month is not as much as you would ultimately prefer to move the unemployment rate down as fast as you'd like. ..

and now i would say the average private-sector forecasters is looking at 8.5% at the end of the year so i will just quote them as opposed to my own projection but it's one place which have seen things being better than they are supposed to be and also just to go back to the december plan to do the payroll tax cut and the 100% expends provision it's important in policy when you have an emerging recovery to take out insurance sometimes you didn't know in december that there would be historic change in the mideast that might affect prices so much about having that extra thousand dollars for the typical family by lowering the payroll tax cut has proven to be an important insurance policy and so the typical family even with high your gas prices still has more dollars for spending than they would have had in

december of 2010. >> that seems like a good point to end. we are out of time whether you need to get back into the economy so thank you very much indeed for your time and best of luck. thank you. [applause]

the assistant to the president for human rights samantha power spoke about emerging democracies including brazil, india, indonesia, turkey, south africa and south korea. she describes how these countries have become involved in global human-rights issues. this is part of a conference hosted by the brookings institution and the national endowment for democracy. it runs an hour. >> why don't we get going to refine the president of the national endowment for democracy, and it's my great pleasure and honor to introduce to you today summoned the power who is the special assistant to

the president and the director of multilateral affairs at the white house and runs the office for the multilateral affairs of human-rights. samantha is well known to a lot of people in this room and for a very long time because she has had a very powerful voice on issues relating to human rights, human dignity and 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 a great human rights defender, and this

has certainly been the kind of work she has done, and when she was at harvard, she held the professorships of the practice of global leadership and public policy that was at the kennedy school, and both of these people gave their lives for human rights. and i having been assassinated in 2003 and theater in iraq and the u.n. explosion that same year which suggests that people obviously in this work pay a price for what they do. she said a very productive relationship with san the. i remember a conversation i had

with her wary of land to her one of our great concerns, which was the number of government especially the aftermath of the orange revolution in ukraine were cracking down on the civil society preventing ngos from operating, and she took a great interest in that issue and eventually it's now become a very important issue for the administration. president obama spoke about this in his last address. secretary clinton gave her a major speech at the meeting last july of the community of democracies on the whole issue of defending civil society and then the u.s. as part of the campaign within the human rights council to create a new freedom of assembly and association, and i know this mandel was probably involved in all of these and certainly making it an important issue in the administration. she's obviously also with her

important book on a problem from hell, the deeply concerned problem of genocide, and the mass atrocities crimes, and last november she took part in a very important meeting organized in paris by the holocaust museum which was attended by other officials and our government. david pressman who's the national security director at the war crimes national security for problems dealing with war crimes and atrocities to even wrap the investor at large for crimes. our government has positions in the white house and in the state department which seek to anticipate potential mass atrocities crimes, and the

speech that samantha gave in paris at the conference focused on how can the government better organize themselves to be able to anticipate and to prevent crimes, as atrocity, crimes against humanity, genocide. the issue by which we are talking about at this conference , the foreign policy, the international policy of what we call the emerging market democracies is one she's taken a very large interest in in the administration we talked about it a great deal. she spotted of indonesia, india, brazil and other countries we are dealing with today. and the importance of their international policy. this is not an issue though

interestingly that she wrote a great deal about before coming unlike the other issues i mentioned. but it's 1i know that she has a very large and deep interest in, and we are really anxious to hear her thinking today. what me just say also by way of introduction before i introduce some and the -- samantha she has come here today because she wants to hear from you. we have a number of very interesting people who spoke on these issues and she hopes to be able to take feedback from the audience so that this can enter into the thinking of the administration with of these issues. the way we are going to organize this is we are going to hear from some and the and then she wants to hear from the audience in terms of comments and thoughts and i hope the major presenters at the conference will give their thoughts and reaction to what she has to say

and then i think there will be very beneficial for the administration as it tries to develop its thinking about the whole issue of the importance on how to work with what we call the emerging democracies and why they are so important in terms of america's thinking about foreign policy today. so it really is a great honor and pleasure for me to welcome some and the to this conference and i want everybody to know that benet considers her to be a friend in the administration. samantha. [applause] >> thanks so much. i'm sorry to not 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 to hear from me here. so i will talk to the about emerging market democracies and their role in democracy and human rights promotion focusing specifically on those countries which you have built this conference and if the obligatory caveat recognizing many of the so-called emerging democracies have space traditions and human rights traditions of different kinds the back generations of not centuries. that said, when president obama took office, the number of democracies in the world have grown in the previous decades from 69 in 1989 to 119 in 2009. however, the number of countries actively supporting democracy and human rights bilaterally and in international fora have remained static of the appeal to

those nations to emerge from tyranny and inspire the world in 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 in prison and protesters were beaten recall your own history because part of the price of a were own freedom is standing up to the freedom of others. in pursuing a partnership with the emerging democracies on democracy and human rights, this ad men lustration i think has brought several promises to bear. first and obvious, in the world

this interconnected, none of us can afford to allow the right violations of human rights to go unaddressed. given the spillover and the destabilizing effect of allowing repression to fester it long ago ceased to be viable to treat human rights conditions as merely the internal affairs of the sovereign state. over 60 years ago the charter and universal declaration recognized protecting human dignity at home is critical to preserving peace and security abroad. president obama has pressed this case to other people in government, stressing, quote, a government that protect the rights or ultimately more stable, more successful and more secure. in short, the more true democracies there are in the world the better off we are and the better off hour fellow democracies are. the second premise is precisely because the emerging democracies are democratic they will face, the government will face growing

pressure from within to align the foreign policy with the domestic values and to integrate human rights concerns. the pressure will come in part from young people who haven't carried with them the sovereignty versus human rights baggage if you will from the 20th century. the evolution of the human rights debate is instructive. our congress and free press and human rights and other advocacy organizations in power with modern technologies have highlighted inconsistencies in u.s. policy and expose human rights abuses abroad. and generally treated like all foreign policy accountability holding as accountable for the extent to which human rights is injected into the foreign policy. emerging democracies we have seen countless campaigns by ngos, investigative journalist accusers and others and human rights at home and it's only a matter of time we believe before these agents have changed apply the tools to their own country's

foreign policy and i will give a few examples of that later in my remarks. third premise we bring to bear is new democracies can make the difference. we believe the future of democracy and human rights are not of the world in places like libya, burma, zimbabwe, venezuela will in the interim not only on the strength of the space movement in those countries which it will turn on primarily come 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 the scale -- tip the scale. when they take a stand it disrupts the old alignments and paves the way for the trash coalition to press for change. simply put, people suffering under the repressive rule the emerging market democracies to stand up for them. now here i think we are seeing some quite encouraging trends i'd like to try to highlight

first emerging democracies are exerting growing leadership and other venues that may will pave the way for more assertive political leadership on the issue is central to this conference. for example the most famous it said was the emerging democracies to help ensure that the g20 has replaced the g8 as a premier global venue for management of economic affairs. and taking up the economic responsibilities many emerging democracies are showing signs of recognizing and increasing the unavoidable link with political developments are not the world. the second trend is that -- and this one has been in place for some years. the emerging democracies are playing an ever more important role which is to promote freedom from fear and some of the world's most dangerous places. indonesia has shown particularly striking growth on this front. the had 27 individual serving in

the u.s. peacekeeping operations in 2003. and they now have nearly 1800. indonesia has established the center for peace keepers and the u.s. and indonesia pledge to work together to turn the center into a network hub for the regional training centers. brazil and south africa's contributions have also grown rapidly. both deployed around 100 personnel to the u.n. peacekeeping operations at the beginning of the last decade and each now contributes more than 2,000 today. brazil has led as many of you know and provide the backbone for the u.n. stabilization mission in haiti, dating back to 2000 for coming and it's notable that at the time of the earthquake when the brazillian contingent itself suffered sought such substantial casualties the brazilian government decided to double the contribution. this isn't something i think 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 crazy emerging democracy is a serious misnomer. in addition to being the one peace keeping contributor in the debt has doubled its contribution and over the past ten years with its 8,500 blue helmets making it the third largest troop contributors in the world today. we are also see any emerging democracies stand for and reach out to the poor. becoming players on the global development stage in a number of important ways. these actors are less inclined to interact with less-developed countries in the donor relationship and in gage as equals in developing collaborative solutions to the development challenges. brazil for example has felt partners in africa improve the crop yields of subsistence farmers by identifying and promoting rapid acceptance of new crop varieties suited to grow in the local environment. similarly, india in partnership with the united states and other governments is leveraging

scientific and technical expertise to develop, test and replicate transform of technologies to extend food security both in india and beyond its borders. and in the increased its contribution to the u.n. democracy fund making it the second largest donor to that fund in the world. third, emerging democracies seem increasingly comfortable strengthening international norms on cutting human rights issues. if given fresh points of entry into a human rights conversation that had grown stale in certain quarters in recent years these emerging democracies seem increasingly inclined to partner with traditional democracies. at the human rights council, countries affiliated with a group of 77 are the so-called non-aligned movement have been at first to singling out specific countries for criticism which they have called a finger-pointing. however countries like brazil and indonesia have recently demonstrated a willingness to

press general global human-rights concerns taking a leadership role for instance in creating the position carl mentioned, the special rapporteur on freedom of association and assembly, the first international mechanism created to monitor the growing crack down on civil society. here where i would note it was a critical co-sponsor of the revolution from the very early stage which in turn made it possible to bring other emerging democracies along such that we are eventually able to get this special repertoire created through the consensus measure rather than a vote. that's how overwhelming the majority was and how many emerging democracies stepped up. brazil also played a leadership role in pursuing the last human rights council session a groundbreaking cross regional statement signed by 85 countries calling for greater respect for the rights of the ltv t persons and but a stubborn and of the special repertoire on the rights and the inter-american system the first ever on these issues. on the u.n. security council we

see of your examples. brazil has generally been a bridge builder on the council of human rights and fanatics such as women, peace and security which links the exclusion of women from conflict related decision making to the maintenance of international security and protection of civilians. the shared cut meant to open the government and corruption fighting corruption and promoting transparency has proven an important common bond with many emerging market democracies. we are working with indonesia, brazil, mexico and others within the u.n., the g20, the oecd and other financial institutions to promote the recognition that corruption is a violation of basic human rights and severe impediment to development and security. indonesia has been a partner in our efforts to advance the anti-corruption agenda in the g20 serving as the co-chair of the process that produces the action plan on the anti-corruption. we are partnering with a group of government and civil society in emerging democracies to launch an effort to bring greater transparency to the

government projects expenditures and the assets of public officials and find ways of leveraging the new technologies to harness citizen engagement in government. this is also a theme president obama lead out in his u.n. address last fall. brazil is a co-chair of the open government effort with the united states and the two presidents highlighted our shared commitment on open government during the recent visit. president obama also highlighted the open government dialogue with india on the visit last year and the jointly organized the first ever democracy open government expo which president obama toward a while in india. in this effort, countries are sharing best practices on the ways in which the institutionalized transparent practices and spending procurement and international aid flow and natural resources to make it harder for officials to strengthen the efforts of citizens to hold the government accountable. emerging democracies are often at the cutting edge of these efforts and are helping to contribute a global community of knowledge and experience that

include not only governments but civil society and the private-sector. fourth, despite their traditional reluctance which i've already loaded to which are accountable emerging democracies them to speak out in the face of human rights abuses or crackdowns. and here i would offer three recent examples. iran, the ivory coast of libya. they voted in geneva last month to create special a repertoire for human rights having a stand on the annual u.n. general assembly resolution on elon, since 2004. it is as many of you knows the first country specific mandate adopted since the creation of the human rights council. in part because of this leadership and the willingness of other countries to follow the lead of the dominant regional players the resolution reinstating year on human rights renu khator also passed by the margin of any of the council or commission's resolution since 1997.

to deal with that lopsided vote as well. in the general assembly vote having always voted no in the past and south africa abstain on the revolution the last two years as well having voted no since 2003. so you're seeing moves from those extensions on the range of countries specific issues. on the ivory coast, which of course has come to the head this week when it came to the u.n. security council action in response to the contested the election by the former president to retain power to important ideas were in tension with one another, nonintervention on the one hand and the importance of regional problem solving on the other. however ultimately all council members including brazil, india and south africa joined consensus on repeating press statements and resolutions. this included imposing sanctions

on four others and a notable shift from the non-aligned movement traditional distaste for sanctions regimes and their leaders. over time the product is also called more forcefully for the interest of the mandate to protect civilians. why what was initially skeptical of the u.n. endorsement of the election's outcome, the position evolved and the support for the findings of the native denney turning point in the resolution of the electoral crisis. ultimately all the emerging democracies on the council voted in favor of the u.n. security council resolution 1975 which carried with it a very forceful mandate accelerating the defeat. and this support for these resolutions was despite the misgivings by many countries over whether the political track had yet run its course. they were still prepared to support a robust enforcement on the ground. this regional solidarity that i mentioned that is responsible for now being able to consolidate control over the

country having won the election, 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 either presidential and parliamentary and will be essential to maintain regional solidarity behind space principles. and on libya the third example i'd like to discuss south africa joined in nigeria in support of the u.n. council of 1973 which took the stuff of authorizing all necessary measures to protect civilians without the consent of a sovereign government. the of stand in the resolution and didn't vote no and joined the consensus several years earlier that imposed sanctions and arms embargo on the regime and the preferred libya in any crimes committed their against humanity and war crimes to the international criminal court. obviously the doubt about enforcement action, robust

enforcement action run deep. yesterday's first expanded summit which includes along with china and russia 3e emerging democracies, brazil, india and south africa salles the brick expressed severe misgivings about the force in libya. so we are going to need to enhance the consultation and continue the dialogue obviously over the need for an first of 1973 failed to protect civilians. it is worth pointing out just how contested countries criticisms and actions are for the individuals within these emerging market democracies trying to shift the national narrative. brazillian president self political prisoner who experienced torture at the hands of the bridge of the cut brazilian military has been more outspoken than her predecessor on international human rights concerns. flexible she distanced herself last year from the comments political dissidents in cuba to the common criminals and upon

taking office she pledged to criticize cuba for its human-rights shortcomings. such policy pronouncements spark critiques even within the halls of power in brasilia and tensions such as these are likely to surface more and more in the months and years ahead. the sixth trend worth today is we are unlikely to this earlier we are seeing a growing number of examples of bottom-up pressures for the democracies to see greater attention to human rights democracies beyond their borders for domestic politics with which to contend. as i alluded to in several decades ago it was a congress that pushed the executive branch to formally report on human rights around the world and was the congress that began restricting funding streams on human-rights grounds to date remains u.s. society, carl and a lot of you in this room constituents in the government accountable, not only for policies at home but also further actions abroad.

similarly in the new democracy it took time for parliament and civil society and the media to turn out russell. they are very encouraging signs the. we have seen the burma caucus and indonesia play an important role putting defeat of the burmese on the political map and play a leading role injecting human rights and to the charter. we've seen growing indonesian citizen pride. when indonesias of identity increasingly takes pride in the democracy in the region and in the world. we've seen thousands of brazilian citizens join the letter-writing campaign for the president flew low to offer the women's sentenced to be stoned to death for alleged adultery. the non-governmental organizations the united states has launched a new initiative pledging to fund those groups,

those nongovernmental groups that would like to partner with other human rights organizations in the region so to try to incentivize work beyond their borders and they have such a huge amount to offer having undergone the transition they had. since the recent revolution it is noteworthy i think that egyptian civil society has found ways virtually and on the ground to connect with indonesia and others in order to learn from their experience living from dictatorship to democracy. those are the trends and you're quite encouraging. needless to say however, there's always more to be done at home and abroad by all of us to consolidate space gains and protect human rights and we should not under a plea genuine disagreement even as we seek to forge more cooperation across borders. there are likely to fully align in the very near term.

it sovereignty shields of protecting them and say external interference during the cold war and other times in the history. slightly its differently. some emerging democracies believe they threw off the yoke of colonialism or dictatorship in their own rely and not tall on external health and the notion such external help can play a positive role in fostering democratization. they cannot dictate events and space progress and they have a role to play and moreover how difficult it is to be neutral in our dealings with repressive states, we've are either affecting human rights into the foreign policy or sending a signal to a repressive regime the rights of citizens are not important to us.

different stages of space and economic dilemma. many emerging market democracies are still consolidating their own game at home, to close extreme equality gaps. it would be a good taxpayer money to provide abortion of a democracy to countries not as far along to the democratic to the limit spectrum. we also have different interests. many of our economies it may still be seeking markets. while many of them may believe democracy is a stabilizing force in the long term they may see the process of democratization as destabilizing in the near term if it is a process that occurs from the region and even if they are similar when they prioritize those in different ways and sikh very different means to the scene and. we feel we we are making progress together and president obama has invited more assertive

leadership by emerging democracies and indeed one way to track the president's commitment to progress in these countries is just to check his travel schedule and the chips to the qtr at the first two years highlight the importance he places on the increase of emerging democracies and regional democratic anchor. he's visited india, indonesia, japan, korea, mexico, brazil and chile among other countries. chips to india and brazil in particular which national security adviser tom donelson and mcdonough spent months and months planning to the rise of the emerging powers. this administration has signaled a desire to engage them even on contentious issues in the spirit of mutual interest and respect. and the process rather than coming to them and the human rights action resolution is already fully cooked and engage

in the new york or geneva but in the high level of capital recognizing the challenge of overcoming the resistance of some of these issues. building these relationships with new democracy doesn't come at a cost i should note to the u.s. traditional space alliances. they remain critically important efforts to foster democracy and promote human rights and accountability. but in the world of over 190 member states we must also build bridges to these critical powers. perhaps the most effective tool for the devotee polarizing tools and traditional debate of the human rights democracy promotion, speaking more openly about our efforts to address our own shortcomings and also bridging sought the tautological divided the human rights and democracy debate. president obama's success and reinvigorating the human rights commitment has made it easier for other governments to stand with us on these and other issues on the international fora. the president has made it clear he believes human rights begin

at home and one of our most powerful tools is our example and struggle, ongoing struggle to perfect the union. this has included reaffirming the door ban on torture and the effort is made to close guantanamo. it continues along multiple patronis, preparing the ratification package for the stability convention, committing the government to producing its own action plan to mainstream gender considerations international secured it was come in the door mask "don't ask, don't tell" including the united states and our record in our own global trafficking reports etc., etc.. it also entails spelling out what this administration will not do. back in his cairo address in 2009 president obama rhee announced the imposition of democracy by military force say no system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other and he pledged to respect all democratically elected movements that reject violence and cover with respect for all their people.

he said his administration would listen to the voices of all peaceful and law-abiding voices even if we disagree with them. and he also challenged the false divisions around the very definition of human rights and democracy. here the president emphasized an inclusive conception of human rights democracy in speeches the designated greatly in africa, asia, the middle east and beyond the president keeps coming back to the center of the human dignity. he's spoken of the dignity of work and peaceful protests, the dignity of choosing one's leaders, the dignity of being able to speak freely and pray freely. he's spoken not only in terms of individual dignity but also the dignity of nations deserving of the respect. the president and his foreign policy team consistently made clear elections alone of course do not democracy make. it also will welcome independent media and judiciary, private

sector and civil society that drive space progress. he said memorably africa doesn't need a strong and it needs strong institutions to read in his nobel speech he returned to one of president kennedy's novel ideas when kennedy said let us focus on a more practical a tangible piece based not on a sudden resolution of human nature with the gradual evolution of human institutions. as part of his challenge to the fullest visions the president has emphasized the link between freedom from fear and from want and has given a greater emphasis to the economic development in foreign policy we have seen in generations. we've seen recently in the revolution sparked by the frustrations of the fruit vendor how important these issues are and just how central the linkage is. president obama hi ladies with the release of the first-ever presidential policy director of global development and secretary clinton spearheaded the introduction of the new tool to ensure the development gets the

attention that it deserves. we've long set priorities as you know in the defense department's quadrennial defense review but it was a bitter clinton who introduced the diplomacy development read your the que dvr. the administration policies are rooted in the president's idea expressed in his local speech that, quote, just peace include not only civil and political rights it must be attending. beginning with his 2006 speech before the parliament while still senator i mentioned this fall for the president obama has also emphasized corruption is a profound assault on human dignity rights and secretary clinton has taken the step of highlighting corruption in the annual human-rights report and finally the president stressed lasting change must come from the bottom-up and the indigenous and approach the residence differently with those in emerging democracies that pride themselves on the history of the

national movements come emerging democracies that are suspicious of outside intervention. the president has repeatedly stressed the change of not something the united states or any other country can force or is there one model for change he says each nation gives life to this principle, democracy and its own way grounded in the tradition of its own people america doesn't presume to know what is best for everyone each country will pursue a path through to in the culture of its people and past traditions. however this isn't a recipe for america's standing on the sidelines the president has coupled his respect for other traditional for the challenge to developing countries to take responsibility to fix some problems. all people year and for certain things. it's not western values because the people of libya to risk their lives on behalf of democracy. as the president said in moscow with the civil society groups these ideals are not the monopoly of one country. wherever possible he's in with

the universal declaration human rights, the covenant of political rights and international instruments the very government of abusing human rights long ago joined. this humility has helped us build these cross regional coalitions which would seem to be increasingly willing partners. in conclusion, the obama administration has engaged in a short and long game when it comes to the promotion. we are vastly more affected in both when we are accompanied by a regional powerhouses and emerging market democracies as has undergone such inspiring changes, their own in the recent years. the test for a powerfully to the university devotee of the principles we are promoting. the regime they've long sought in the regional blocs and the comfort they found in the diversion of the polarization. finally the leadership of the emerging democracies noticed by the people in the repressive

societies is emerging democracies offer a validation of bottom-up change, the testament to how quickly the country's fortune can be transformed into the model for the social vibrancy, economic growth and political horizon that come with a space change. let me leave it there and just hear from you. [applause] >> this is now a time when samantha would really like to hear from you. this conference has raised a lot of issues and we've even had some internal dates in terms of if we are talking about countries just being a model and promoting democracy just by being a model of projecting or promoting i think there's a consensus we are not for

opposing. but i think there are views here across the spectrum and what's appropriate and there are some differences among the different countries for which people have given papers. when asked what is it about this that has been interesting and effective i always say that i think the most -- one of the most important things we've done is what we call cross border work and that started after 1989 when poland and now other countries in central europe because they believe in democracy but also to make their neighborhood more stable reached out across the borders to work for democracy and we helped some 55 ngo's from the communist world will work working not just for the east and eurasia but also as far afield as burma or afghanistan so this is a very important dimension of what we

do and obviously the u.s. believes it needs cross border work, to back from friends and that's what we've heard from samantha. we hear from the speakers perhaps to get a chance to the reaction to what some of the said, she wants feedback sign going to open the floor of people really to make statements and say something in conclusion but really now is the opportunity for people from the floor to say something to read this, please. from your vantage point recently as the implementation of the sharia islamic law we affected dhaka can't human-rights advances and attacks in the emerging space world in

particular? >> that's not a comment the question. we will take. is it addressed to me? >> anybody have any comments to make? please come over here. >> george mason university. when we look at human rights, they're seems to be a certain amount of prioritization required by the limited amount of resources, and in terms of saving lives, addressing structural violence seems to be much more cost-effective method of them doing direct violence approach with military intervention are significantly more costly than addressing structural violence. >> i guess my question for you is how are you privatizing those

different cost competitive advantages and mike, it is it would seem we are doing more structural violence -- >> what you mean by that? addressing structural violence. give me an example. >> given the poverty prevention, those types of capacity building instead of the military forms of intervention. >> okay. i see a hand here and back there and then in the very back. yes. >> good afternoon. my name is allison johnson, international political economist, and i would like very much to export deeper what we've been talking about today and yesterday around the right type of programming over time to support democracy and human rights coming from the u.s. a perspective of course which also provides that kind of feedback for the emerging democracy and how they think about programming

because one of the things we've been tracking is the decrease of funding from the united states government over time for democracy promotion. how're you structuring things to promote congress in this budget crisis where we could put more funding into the promotion of human rights and democracy in our work and around the world. how do you see the trends that you tracked in your speech matching reactions from congress? do you believe there is a window of space on the dialogue on this because over time it is a more productive use of our u.s. tax dollars money to invest in the democracy promotion than in other programs. >> thank you. let me just say that from the very beginning of the administration has been good in its budget request but it's congress that has the power of the purse. >> thank you. university of wisconsin

international. the space elections and specifically cited the importance of the international and the conventional political rights and you did not mention the everett said and there are plans for such things as the right for clean air and food and shelter and education even someone say the right to be free for example of the dumping of toxic waste. as i wonder how you feel the administration is on these economic and social rights where they stand in relation to the political rights on the destruction and handling the same way. >> thank you very much. is that kelly in the back? >> project 49 institute.

thank you for the presentation to read it raises a lot of interesting issues. i am somewhat surprised one word you didn't mentioned throughout the entire presentation was china. it's been a topic on several of the panel's of the emerging market democracies are shaping the policies in response to china's's rise and to the pressures china is putting on them and the behavior around the world and the dissidents also in between the message is that you're putting out the administration supports what space development sees the countries as the natural partners but also at times to 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 space or to engage in political reform. so right to give you kind of look at the entire picture it can be a little bit

disconcerting to have that talent running for the administration foreign policy and that is just a comment i guess. >> are there any -- yes, are there any other hands? yes call please. >> the brookings institution. i think my question is just on i think there is a change in discourse from democracy promotion to democracy strengthening and a lot of ways with a lot of the programming and some of the program that is related to the democracy strengthening or a lot harder to measure what the impact is in the tight budget environment when $8 needs to go further how can this increasing focus on monitoring and evaluation really

jul foot democracy strengthening programs that are hard to get concrete numbers. we don't even use the term democracy. a lot of the activists on the ground don't like. denney to be promoted. they're fighting. what they want to support and assistance sui's the term democracy assistance. we don't release per promotion anymore but it seems the lexicon there's nothing we can do about it. but we don't think in those terms. president obama as you mentioned spoke out about the need for the new emerging space powers to speak on behalf of the other places and there's 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 for the rights of others accountable or to press them more forcefully for just talking about cooperation. thank you. >> this will be more of a comment may be rambling. [inaudible] [laughter] i think this is also partially the reflection of the things we have discussed here already about six countries. there are two different ways of looking, there are several ways of looking with the human rights issues in the world agenda are

and there is certainly the question of credibility when it comes to the formal imperial powers or the united states with your understanding of what human rights are because as you yourself said there are different understanding of human rights and the professor from wisconsin as well suggested that if the poor countries understanding with the basic human rights are than yours need to be different. second of course you have your record which large parts of the world think we are being critical. third there is the issue on the part of the united states as the predominant power of being selected even on the issue of libya. libya and about rain are happening at the same time. i can understand why you speak about libya and quiet on bahrain

and the israeli-palestinian, the kind of discriminatory practices where you usually are either mom or very quiet is the so-called engagement if there is any for south africa which was criticized when we had the south african panel. so that may be understood as partially domestic politics and partially the responsibilities of a great power and the balance is in the world to have your interests and all that. how do you work on trying to if he will break out of that first personal with the u.s. does and what it does why does what it does and second how we get to the more common understanding of human rights and your engaging in dialogue with partners and have brazil on your side and the

iran now in south africa with some reluctance to join the united states on the issue of iran and whatever and is it because you are in conversation with them changing your own language and discourse and wherever you stand. >> thanks. >> any of the other speakers or anybody else want to grumble? >> i see a hand all the way in the back there. >> jim, enterprise service. i just -- this may be a little unfair, but how does the thrust of your remarks and the importance of encouraging the emerging democracies square with the kind of op-ed that was published this morning or yesterday where president obama joined the state's or government rather of great britain and

france and why the indians and brazilians and south africans were put in 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 were stressing in your speech? >> okay, well i take these to hands and that will be it. a multiple the last speaker's point. we heard from these indonesian panel earlier and one of the common was about the fact one of the reasons indonesia can't engage as much on democracy as it might like is because it lacks the space credentials and i wanted to reflect on that a bit with regard to how the u.s. and gauges on democracy and samantha hayes in very good points about how the u.s. has

taken that criticism on board and worked in this administration to engage differently and the openness to talk about economic and social rights. the way the u.s. undertook the exactly leading by example we want to see from the u.s. government to make a movie to play a positive role in the emerging democracies but unfortunately there are gaps and need to be addressed a glaring one has come into life and the recent days is the fact that the u.s. itself doesn't come to the invitation to allow the rather tours of the human rights council in this country they haven't been able to visit guantanamo detainees on the basis and not the issue has come up with regards to manning as well. sitting on with the fact that consistency has to be maintained as firmly as appropriately across issues in countries and

in reemphasizing the important point made earlier that about rain is an example where they don't see as much consistency as we would like and other places. >> thanks very much, why don't you get the microphone -- >> the last comment relating to the u.n. security council approving of what happened in the move of the g8 and the g20 would probably be in the conversations here the last couple of days with the theme of the u.n. reform and the p5 been so dominant has come up over and over again and the change on that could come and if it could how we see that play into the reenforcing approval for the u.s. where we can give a critique of hypocrisy.

>> samantha? >> i'm not going to say much. i again would like also to very much here from some of the individuals from these countries and questions or the motto in this administration which is nothing about you without you and this comes about what in the peacekeeping context. i'm happy to stick around a couple of minutes and i'm going to brush back to a tv to something in a couple of minutes but on the in any of the specifics you want to follow-up, first on this broad question of kind of prevention and simply to say that on the structural violence and this idea that we wait too long until it becomes

too costly and so forth i think what the foreign policy is every day for all of its limit is an effort of prevention dealing with a cause of the structural violence and i had a long section of the speech on the emphasis of this administration has placed on the development and economic development that is the prevention tool if you get development right, if you have better partnerships and collaboration more of an emphasis on results that is your best tool. and the diplomacy that we've done that many other countries have done in the ivory coast context that the policy is an effort to prevent violence before it comes about. you're calling on people to respect the results of the space elections and in the event they respect them that in turn is going to prevent the kind of violence we have seen in recent

weeks. so i can see from the inside it's not like suddenly when there is an occasion in which things have gotten really that we suddenly start paying attention and thinking ghosh we should have prevented. everyday we have our emissions and diplomats and trying to do this kind of work. as i suggested in the speech the importance of injecting human rights concerns into your day-to-day diplomacy cannot be understated, that is a signal of the priority we place on this every bit as much as our resources and programs and sometimes one of the things we try to do is mary diplomacy and the programs and sometimes they operate in kind of different silos and we tried to address that as i think other

administrations have challenging but it's critical and it's about making human rights not just the subject of the press release or a very high profile intervention but of the day-to-day routine business of what we do it can add a few comments i would just say that as carroll indicated, our budget request have been very substantial and the president and secretary are incredibly committed to defending these requests it is the role for the civil society and for the constituents and making the case that these are cost-effective investments that these are not just sort of a satiric distance issues of foreign policy but they are very related to the foundation that we are trying to build for our kids here at home and the stable

world that will make it easier for us to come to draw back our military presence and other things around the world. and then in terms of the question of accountability and another engagement with the emerging democracies, has suggested the accountability and the most effective form of accountability will come from and is coming more and more from those societies so that is the important place to look into the important place those of you have those partnerships and i know that man has been working on this is it to be the most sustainable and effective route to the end and i think many people here share and that said our dialogue with the countries in instances we disagree are expressing that and so there is accountability. this is not, you know, the

differences that recur are differences that we air frequently and i think have made a lot of progress and i want to correct the misimpression i heard in a couple of the last comments the nature of being a u.s. official in getting a speech about the importance of emerging market democracies taking a leadership on these issues the case which i think is obvious to all of you i hope i didn't imply somehow these countries it was stepping up because the united states was or because i don't think that is the case at all and i think the security council example is a good one when india, brazil, south africa, turkey, when these countries are on the security council they are responsible for maintaining international peace and security and it's a responsibility they take very

seriously but these are countries that want to step up to leadership roles and they want to see the secure council reform for that reason and be part of that conversation and part of the enforcement apparatus so while my speech was about what we are doing and building these partnerships and so forth the reason the conference is so important is hearing the perspective of the countries themselves and how they see democracy and human rights sitting in to the broad economic stabilization debate and the international peace and security debate so i just think you for pulling it together and i hope i get to see the transcript or the findings or something so i can take more backed and what we can do better >> it really shows the complexity of the subject.

it's not a simple a unified view as to how all this works. and your presentation is really offered a comprehensive view coming from this country which is sort of an absent in this conference and we think you for bringing into this conference and obviously all of the results in the discussions. thanks for being with us. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations]

to the texas congressman ron paul gave a talk in manchester and hampshire about the economy, budget deficits and the constitution. the venue was the 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. it's my privilege to offer to

the prejudice dr. ron paul. dr. paul served in the house of representatives 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 earliest achievements was becoming a high school state champion of the 220-yard dash. the graduate of duke medical school dr. paul's career was originally focused on madison. he served as a surgeon in the united states air force and deliver it over 4,000 babies over the course of his medical career. an expert on financial policy, congressman paul was currently serving as the chairman of the financial services subcommittee on domestic monetary policy. from this position he worked to cut out to control spending, reduce taxes and defend the constitution. he's run for president in 1988 and in 2008. his 2008 campaign enjoyed heavy support from college students and directed both national and world wide attention when in which he raised over $35 million was able to claim 35 delegates. in addition to his medical and

political achievements dr. paulson we are times bestselling author of several books and will soon be releasing a new work entitled liberty defined. historic chairman of the campaign for liberty and national organization dedicated to promoting and defending individual rights of upholding the constitution, protecting free markets and promoting a strong pro-american foreign policy. and now it is my pleasure to present to you dr. ron paul. [applause] [applause] >> think you. appreciate that very much. a lot of enthusiasm. i like that. before i get started i would like to introduce a couple of people with me today. my wife, carol.

[applause] jessie benton is sitting down here to get he's been working in the campaign but is 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. 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 fought has been fought through inflation, destruction of currency, so could it be possible we are doing that again. and also, if you have a domestic policy of welfare, that costs money too and how do you finance

it? the federal reserve and the monetary policy is very much involved. but i might just 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 college. i think the only thing -- the only time that i was interested in politics and college in 1956 is when there was a suez canal crisis and i got worried i was going to get drafted and i was so happy that eisenhower said no leave it alone we are not going over there. we had enough war and i agree with that, so i was fortunate i didn't get drafted 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 put in to the military and that ended up with me serving in the military for five years. but it is during 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 that was my introduction to austria the free-market economics and i come across a book by hijacked and that was the road to serfdom and that to me is fascinating and the courage to study and read on economic policy. but in 1971 but even predicted by the austrian economist that the gold standard would break down because it was such abuse in the brinton what's went last and if it was established new hampshire it wasn't in during because it brought on because a was deeply flawed and was the end of any link of our dollar to goldman in 1971. my motivation was to speak out because this was such a

confirmation and the hard money people have predicted and lo and behold the monetary system collapsed and we had a bad decade, we had stagflation, high inflation and a very bad economy. but what bothered me the most is the time was the day after it was announced it was announced on sunday night of august 15th, 1971. the day after the chamber of commerce loved it and it was a closing the gold the wage and price controls, high tariffs, 10% tariffs on every bit of input, absolutely opposite of everything the free-market would want us to do with the chamber of commerce loved it and the stock market loved it and i thought there is something awfully bizarre about what's going on. we really 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 i felt comfortable about doing that because i knew not much would come of it and i keep practicing medicine but my wife want me you shouldn't miss around with that that could be dangerous. you might end up getting elected doing this stuff. [laughter] but i assured her that wouldn't be possible bugles i wasn't going to play the roles of the santa claus would you want here it is and don't worry about spending and i didn't have confidence i was cynical and thought there wouldn't be anybody out there there will listen to that message and she was less cynical and thought maybe they would respond to the positive way so that one danger you have you put your name on the ballett and have a risky might get elected and have to be careful. but anyway, it did lead to a double career for me. although i was in congress for

four terms in the late 70's and early 80's i was restless and frustrated and went back home and wanted to practice medicine and did that for 12 years and then got interested again because i was still fascinated with how the 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 in to t 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 the constitution and protected our liberties we would be a lot better off today. [applause] but when you think about defending liberty, we can look

to our constitution. it's pretty darn good. but you know, i've actually decided that the document itself is secondary. it's good to have a document. we should have the rule of law and be very keen on following the rule of law. but we have a document called the constitution. everybody goes to congress, everybody takes the same oath and it seems like nobody knows what they are doing. every betty takes the same oath and it's strange most of them believe they are following the constitution. today with the new congress there is a new rule. any time you pass a law today and introduce legislation you have to cite the portion of the constitution you get the authority to do when 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 will cite the end of article 1, section 8 the listed things we are allowed to do but at the end is as you can write any law necessary to enforce article 1 section eight but today dissected that and say we are running this small because it's necessary and proper to do so. so the constitution hasn't restraint people from doing what we have ended up with. we go to war without declaration and have a welfare state that's not authorized in the constitution and a monetary system that disobeys the constitution so it hasn't worked it was adams that said it won't work unless you have a moral people, and if you have ray immoral people who will send individuals to washington and they are tolerated to not follow the law, the constitution won't do us any good i think we will

reach the point but 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 can't let people go along and say the constitution is a breeding, a living document and we have to adapt it but don't bother to amend it just do whatever you want and justify it because it's so unnecessary and we don't have time to amend the constitution and on the constitutional issue there's something i've worked on for so many years. to many coming and why are we doing this? i was aware of world war ii, i was aware of the korean war teachers left our 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, korea was

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

the chairman of the committee at that time said that, paul, he says you should ignore that because that part of the constitution is an anachronism. we don't follow that anymore. that's about the way they look at the whole constitution. maybe the gold and silver legal tender provision. it's anachronism. it's the lack of respect for the whole flock 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've ended up with a mess. we've ended up with constant war and escalating expansion of the welfare state and we are flat out broke. you know the technical declaration of the country that's bankrupt is when you can't honor your commitment in

money. because there has been a tremendous amount of trust placed in us. placed in our money and our wealth and military. we go back to sound money and the world to get and converted and said the dollar even though it isn't backed by gold will use it as for gold instead. and they put it in the central banks and use it as a reserve and it has given 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 is a lot of responsibility to ride on us because we have been spending too much money and when we come up short we see a print of the money as long as they take that counterfeit money the better it is for us. as we have had pretty good

wealth in the last 40 years but not the last time the wealth has been going down for ten years but even at the end of the gold standard in 71 there was still a lot of wealth created. but now the debt is so great, the same old cliche and same old politics of getting out of the recession by spending more money and printing more money in the business climate picks up again it's not working this time a judge or serious area. we have the financial bubble crashed. but now what we are facing is the dollar crisis, the collapse of the currency and when that happens it's worldwide. because of your body holds them in reserve banks. even today commodity prices are starting to creep up and the stock market might be going up but it's very, very shaky.

when you look what has happened to the housing market there is still a lot of problems there and it's expected not to be solved. we got into this mess because we spent too much money. the debt was too high. we borrowed too much money and regulate it too much and we had the federal reserve monetize everything. so they finally said this is really serious. we have to do something about this and get our house in order so the increase the spending, increase the deficits, increase the borrowing, increased regulations and increase the printing of the money and that was supposed to solve the problem. it's like a drug addict that's out of his mind with drugs. the attic for the alcoholic feels a little bit better. in the store to get withdrawal symptoms and feel better. but what happens is finally killed the patient if you don't get them off the addiction to

live beyond our means, individuals can't live beyond their means nations get away from it for a long time, but eventually we are called to task and have to live within our means and that's what we are witnessing today. what i see is first looking to our traditions because it isn't likely have to invent something new, we have to say well, you know, we've had this interventionist keynesian the economy and it's been an experiment for all these years. we have to have something new. where they've had experience off and on for centuries on this and have had experience with tyranny and the authoritarianism for centuries we only had a short example of an experiment with true liberty. not perfect but true liberty by the constitution that we follow created the free most prosperous country in the history of the world and we reject it. we have failed to defend those principles. it's created -- the way that i

look at this is it created so much wealth that it became the driving force that the material benefits for all that we cared about so that when people would come to washington they are there to just defeated the luft because we are so wealthy so in doing that and ignoring the principles of sound money and limited government and property rights by limiting that 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 were losing their jobs and they don't have houses. freedom of education, i can go on and on thinking that's going to be the solution and it isn't. in a free society we have to understand what it is, we have to know that it involves most of what we knew in our traditions. the founders knew something

about inflation that's why sidley gold and silver you can not print money and build credit. they knew about personal liberties and foreign policies that steel of these and tingling alliances no adventures and honesty of how committed the country but trade with people and be friends with people but stay out of these internal affairs of other nations. we totally ignored it and now the presidents have become more arrogant every time we get a new president, this particular president says about war we don't even have to tell you of going to war now that we are in another format in libya not that we didn't have enough in our hands we have iraq and afghanistan, we constantly bombed pakistan and they get annoyed about that likely would get away if they were doing it to us. we are going over into libya and

participating there. we've already spent a billion dollars the last couple of weeks in libya and we don't have any money. it's in same what's happening. we have to protect or interest. if you have interest and libya and want to protect them maybe you ought to go over there and protect them. [applause] but it will come to an end. the message of afghanistan would be so loud and clear the soviet system was brought down over afghanistan, the was the final blow they broke down in the system collapsed and came to an economic reason. it was jerry much the cold war, the cold war ended with a whimper. we didn't have to fight the soviets because they don't have

an economically flawed system. fortunately we are not nearly as authoritarian as the soviet system was but we are becoming more authoritarian all the time and that bothers me, and the tool that is used by those who want to move to the authoritarianism always use of fear so if there is any reason to be fearful, scare the people and they will do our bidding. there's a lot of reason to have been concerned on 9/11, which we all were and should have been and should have studied and learned what was the cause but because of the figure would we do right afterwards? a week or two afterwards, the huge legislation attacking and making sure we are going to give the terrorists it was an attack on you. every single american and now we

start prodding and putting our hands down and fingers of little girls at airports and all of a sudden we are going to be safer. and i heard too often after 9/11 you have to do that and give up some of your liberties for your safety and i don't believe that i don't believe it should ever give up any liberty for your safety. [applause] i have so much confidence in the free society that a pretty good way for all of us to be safe is to fully understand the second amendment. [applause] but you know, the stage was set. i've 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 they don't want to kill us because we

are free and prosperous, but we already lost our way because the responsibility of security on the airline was the government already and they said never resist a hijacker and pilots were not allowed to have guns so setting the stage. and was perfect for those who wanted to do what they did. but in the free society, the airlines would be treated more like an armored car that picks up the money. they have guns and protection and they protect the money better than the people. ..

the. >> day side there is too much of that we want our liberties back and responsibilities back we don't want the warmongering overseas and we can be more save differently than we are

now. we have a president i got my eight authority from the united nations. when did that happen? is started with truman but i have a solution for that quite a we just get out of the united nations? [applause] we are depended on internationalism that there's sort -- true free-market person does not sustain globalism but it has to be voluntary, a train, a friendly, it cannot be internationalism patrolled by international government. we have the imf and the road they end wto and nafta and the international organizations for ago i call all of those untangling alliance is that i would

soon stay out of all of them. [applause] how does it get financed? of course, we borrow money come attacks people, we cannot tax anymore revenue is going down because the economy is so weak if you put on attacks it will get weaker. even if they tried to raise revenue, they will not. not only weaken the economy and less productivity it drives more people into the underground economy. because they try to survive. i don't know how we deserve credit it is still pretty good but the rest of the currencies are not much better. if you compare our money and dollars to the euro, i do think you'll be saved by putting your dollars into euros? no.

that will not help much at all but there is a limit to how much borrowing a statistic today definitely the chinese are not borrowing or lending as much money with treasury bills as they used to it is not as if they cut off they don't to cause a dollar crash but not buying as many. the world will start buying at less which means they are pushed up with the only thing left for the government to do is look day's work with the federal reserve to monetize the debt to create money out of thin air. that is counterfeit as far as i am concerned we should have put people in jail today because they want to use gold and silver which is constitutional and legalizing the counterfeit of the government they want to charge people to deal

with sound money and they make the charges of fraud and terrorist charges and counterfeiting because they want to use gold and silver as money but paper money is counterfeit and it is fraud and unconstitutional but i am convinced it will come to an end because there is a limit no paper currency last for a long period of time. this is 40 years. probably getting with their last legs and that is a major crisis when that happens because just spending the money we were down there this week the continuing resolution and the budget and a bit of an affirmation i did not vote for the budget because i don't think it will do anything to solve the problem. [applause]

this year the national debt will go up 200000000:00:00 a.m. they talk about $38 billion cuts with the continuing resolution that was the real but fictitious and is nothing. that is why it has to come to an end we don't know exactly when come inouye to predict it no way for us to know the day the housing bubble would burst redo it was coming and it did but in the world it will motivate people to get out of the dollar but they slowly get out of the dollar where are they running right now? buying silver coins. [applause] a few people buying gold.

the dollar was one 20th of the town's of cold know it is 11500 spur growth it is at record highs 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. a pretty good evidence there has never been a war fought without inflation even in ancient times because they would inflate by clipping clients toward ending the metals and to undermine the value today it is more sophisticated because talk about printing money they don't actually print, that is not it they just use a computer. right now we're starting to get some real evidence from the fed. we had a token victory friday at more about the fed in the last six months than the whole time in existence.

we did not get our bill passed but partially past and i am still working on the fact we need a full audit of the federal reserve and everything they are doing. [applause] if the american people do exactly the shenanigans going on who got the bailout all the people who made all this money on the speculation and derivatives market, they made their bucks then they go bust and then to be the taxpayers are stuck with the worthless assets and the treasury bottom as well as the federal reserve buy the assets and the guys making the money got bailed out but the economy gets weaker and people lose their jobs and lose their mortgages and houses. it is not geared toward the average person it is all

here to take care of big banks and big corporations military industrial complex, world bankers now we have evidence it could be between 30 and 50% of all trillions of dollars they used to bail out the crisis that the fed best days passed out when to overseas banks. one big bail-out 1/3 was owned by gadaffi. that is how insane that it is. yes we have to take care of this but they do it at the expense of the average person it is paid with prices just think tax tax tax inflationary tax the value of the currency, gasoline will go up a lot more and that am bernanke says i can take care of it. when i know it is here i will though the instant to take the money back to raise

the interest rates. he doesn't know. he also said there was no housing bubble. he will get us out of this mess? no way that could happen but changing the manager of the fed to get a better manager of the money system will not work. i don't imagine you can find anything worse, but it won't help because it is the system and the system that we have to change that is the reason my position of the fed is end of the federal reserve. [applause] in the freedom philosophy that i talk about and believe so strongly as it is an american tradition and embedded with our constitution if we did follow it. it is pretty clear-cut for

pro people say you are the isolationist? no. i want to train with people but it just not a fight with people unnecessarily. it would be non intervention and one part would be so important based on the market's the free market system where transactions are voluntary and card charges are important with sound money. today instead of victor vermette protecting and in forcing our contracts the government breaks our contracts and imposing rules and regulations and how about property? they should protect some of private property but just try to use your property. not only from your local and state people but to the federal government and 10

agencies before you can use your only and so i think we need to say it is our property weird are hurting anybody. leave it alone. [applause] >> one area of many conservatives get lackadaisical. i like to look at the personal and economic liberties as being the same purpose of the founders did not how you spend your money back on your personal habits it is one thing but the problem with the liberal, they say no. if you don't have rules and regulations people fall through the? we have to make sure we take

care of them because the conservatives says if they have total liberty they will do things i don't approve of. the horror. [laughter] but the rule is it is your life you can wasted or use it but it is up to you what you want to do with it as long as you don't hurt anybody would you do personally or with your property then it is none of the government's business. >> [applause] americans are pretty good on the first amendment and most would agree for freedom of expression and we have that pretty much. i can cautiously express my views. [laughter] and we don't have to fear anything. but we don't have the first amendment so we can talk about the weather. it is to talk about

controversial things and ideas and everybody knows that but do we know that it applies to our religion? no religion or a lot of religion not to have a theocracy. [applause] and we know we should not in bed down our intellectual life for religious life that is to deal with something pretty important with our are -- eternity and the salvation but when it comes to drinking raw milk the government can tell you if you can or not to or what you smoke and drink and the whole works. anything that goes into the mouth is up for grabs at all levels they think they can tell us and i say no.

and these habits whether igor smoking they can be solved with private property rights by allowing restaurants to make their own rules rather than closing people down. somebody lit a cigarette today. obviously i don't like the cigarette, the drugs, but as bad as i do not like those come i really don't like the drug war. it is much more dangerous. [applause] a lot more people have died in the drug war than the drugs and more people die from prescription drugs and the illegal drugs. they don't do very good by having good drugs legalize the there.

we have a tremendous task ahead of us who don't have the same attitude from when they wanted to make alcohol illegal. they worked for 70 years to get the country to agree that was bad stuff. they come along in say we prohibit from these bad habits? what do they do? they amend the constitution can you imagine anybody today suggesting to amend the constitution with the drug war? the modern-day drug war was started in nearly seven days and they have spent hundreds of billions of dollars and we have more prisoners than any ready else in the world and a lot of people that were nonviolent and come out very violent. i say it is time to allow people to make their own

choices and sever there on consequences if they make bad choices they cannot come crawling to the government. [applause] freedom is some things that we all believed in and understand and want to protect burkett was tested best better than any country in the world but yet today it is slipping away. an early experiment most in history has been run by tyrants they are a authoritarians in some area and what other people want to do they don't think their job is but one thing which is the protection of liberty. that is what we should be doing. [applause] we as a people have lost confidence of freedom really works that there will be so

many people suffering with no medicare or food and people falling through the? and on and on. budget win society decides they need the have to be taking care of by government? just a couple of people. you cannot be against it. nobody is to say we must take care of these people but what happens is it endorses the idea that is destined to grow after 50 years you destroy the productivity and those to become dependent to grow and grow so i have 42 million people on food stamps and everybody depends on the government now for their medical care. there was a lot of talk and complaints i am sure this crowd is not too happy with obamacare but we should at least have the chance to opt

out of the system. i would like to opt out of all of the government programs. [applause] the the other thing that i tell people, especially the young people if they get worried if it sounds too radical in order to sound -- solve the problem you have to be realistic and we willing, but everybody has to sacrifice. i don't think that is necessary. if you got your freedom back and didn't have to pay taxes and the government is out of your life, why would that be a sacrifice? people who receive from government the bailouts of the military industrial complex they have to sacrifice but i don't think the average person has to sacrifice anything.

but today i think we see some positive changes and the polar starting to recognize we have the of mess talk about the fed and the endless horrors and read the about us participating in torture and people here this and get tired of the economy. by believe there is a degeneration that believes differently and moving into a positive bear a. moving into the era that we will reject the government and the state to take care of it because they will not be able to. even those receiving entirely from the government starting to realize there is an end to this. you cannot have $2 trillion

debt increase every year and once you see prices going up, that is a huge tax so people know about it. i am pleased when i come to the university whenever i get a chance because the changes will come from the university would you change ideas. politicians you cannot depend on those in washington to solve your problem. you have to do with the intellectual climate but we have to repeal keynesian philosophy. [applause] we have talked about a revolution all lot which is a revolution of ideas' when a true revolution comes it is intellectual to invades university, the media and the culture and eventually the political system. it won't be partisan and.

if you say only the republicans rehab in congress today to solve our problems, it will not happen it has to be a revolution of ideas and they are the ideas of liberty that means for this to work you have to build a coalition. because there are people all across the political spectrum that believe in civil liberties and they oppose the foreign intervention you need to bring these people together to say this is one entity it is liberty that we have to defend. the whole purpose from my personal viewpoint is for us personally to work for excellence and for two that is a goal in life that is my goal but best done in a free society that means liberty is a goal yes we want sound money with foreign policy

but they come together to make common sense if the goal is to recognize that you are an important entity with the right to your life and liberty and our right to be left alone not from the government but the god-given way if we recognize that the nine convinced we can solve all of our problems. thank you. [applause] i believe we have time for questions? of that is the case need a microphone or make sure i hear the question. >> dr. paul i want to point* out when somebody says that is not unconstitutional marino denied the state supreme court upheld that i

like to say please explain why you agree with that ruling and with those eight words you can introduce the concept of thinking for themselves pry founded in the poll and the electoral college process i will pass it on to you or to your wife. >> she will make sure that i read it. [laughter] >> dr. paul, i have learned that we used to be a republic but now too most college students they say we're a democracy. we need more education on what we should be. how do think we could get back to making the federal government smaller like it is intended to be to get back there sovereignty? >>

>> battery get the job done? also to emphasize the fact that we're not a democracy but a republic. when the people are understanding those terms, than agreed get rid of about 80 percent of what the federal government is doing then we would be safer and happier. [applause] but i think your point* about democracy is so important because all of the president's use it so carelessly. we have democratic elections but that does not make us a democracy. it is a dictatorship of the majority and that is the abuse of all minority rights. but even the democratic process if you just been a little bit on the definition, what was one of the major excuses going into iraq? to spread democracy to teach

them how to beat good democrats and by the way one of the first things they got liberals -- rebels to sup is a central bank. [laughter] but we go overseas, we kill people and our people get cold but we will put on them the idea we force you to be good people but at the same intended democratic process is very reit and not much difference is on the results of republican her democrat then where is the alternative? you barely have fun. yes you can start the libertarian party but can you get on balance our get into the debates are the recognition? no. wheat died to spread democracy overseas but we could learn a lot about taking care of our own

business at home first. [applause] thank you representative paul. >> guy of a question about the money going to libya through the federal reserve i was very upset when i read that last week why would no one at the fed be held accountable for that? >> because it is a government unto itself and they are very, very powerful. there also on the defensive and more so than ever before. they could do everything is secret but fortunately for the two lawsuits by bloomberg and fox that they got the information out. because we had a modification of my bill last year we got more information in july. it does fall on me with some of the responsibility in the

committee to bring this to light and we will do our best. but unfortunately, it will be very, very difficult. they are very powerful. if you think about it, they have more economic political clout and told congress. they spent but the congress betty and 250 billion and all done in secret. yes they should be held accountable. some of the stories coming out who has gotten the loans? but the odds of being held accountable. >> the best ways to hold them accountable that we blame them. they have a free ride if we

have a rise in interest rates are where they should be and we have a glowing eked -- growing economy but then it turns down because of the fed then they come in to say what we need to do is print more money and rescue people who are in trouble and generally they got credit for getting us back out of the slump. but that will not 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 optimistic much will happen. >> congressman paul thank you for speaking with us. i can but i do have a little book coming out desk ann s. suspect i spent a lot of

time on an integration in. it is of these is subject to do with because i start off saying there are two extremes. the extreme libertarian view that says there should be no borders and people come and go wherever they want. then the other point* barbwire fences and guns and just the issue libertarian approach and no proper eight it would have to be a credit to where we are today and it will not happen but we have a lot of illegal assurance and i have proposed legislation that they should not qualify for welfare. [applause] . .

>> i can bring my family. you know, and they get free medical care and free education. i'm also convinced that if i had a free market economy and sound money it would be thriving. we would be looking for immigrants. you know, we would need 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 scapegoat and say

those mexicans come over here. they are causing all of our problems. as far as what i would do with how many, 12, 15, no body knows how many illegal immigrants are in the country. i don't believe them in giving them amnesty and citizenship. but at the same time, no matter how strongly you feel about it, you are not going to round up 15 million people and send them some place. because i've seen examples. a lot of them have lived all of their life, still illegal, and in families that are partially legal. that's not going to work. i would not give them citizenship. as a matter of fact, i think people coming over, and i get the citizenship, and you have to work out a transition, this is just a suggestion, if you and i had to wait 18 years before we could vote, maybe they ought to visit -- ought to wait 18 years. there's a bring motive to bring

them in and legalize them and get them voting in a certain direction. i don't think that's right either. believe me, liberty would solve the problem because people wouldn't have be as concerned if the economy was thriving and they were looking for workers. but that's a brief outline. what's next? here. >> welcome to new hampshire. spring is finally here. hopefully the weather is good for you. i've been reading a lot of legislation, four words in every bill just make me scratch my head. look worried. everybody should be worried. and for other purposes. i applaud you and thank you. i know our previous representative from the first district, nobody else did in congress. you had obviously read the bill on haiti to establish the military base. every other bill i said and for other purposes, how can we get that out of legislation, so that

bills are for what they are stated for? >> well, i have to look at the particular bill when they do that. but you are right. it's open ended. and unfortunately, that's the way they like things. but it's just a matter of the individuals, you know, you try and educate your congressman and you running for congress and making sure you don't do it and things like that. >> thank you. i'm wondering about the fact that the federal reserve board sets the interest rates four times a year, something like that. >> no. >> more often. >> more often. you said earlier that interest rates will rise. how can they rise if the federal reserve has to set them? >> okay. interest rates are in a way set by the federal reserve constantly, although lately, they have been rather stable because they are at zero. they don't go any lower.

so their price fixers. and the worse thing that you can do is to fix the price of anything. that'll cause shortages. that's why socialism always fails. 1/2 of the economy and our money and feds fixes overnight interest rate. they don't fix all of the rates and how many you are going to pay on the credit card. so it's for the big guys who get the deals. low interest rates. as a matter of fact, since the crisis has been over, the fed gives free moneys to the banks, the banks go and buy treasury bills, they make two or three percent, and all of the sudden they are making a lot of moneys. they aren't making loans. oh, we are paying back all of our loans already. no, they fix -- they take this authority, they can fix over night rates, that means how the banks have to maintain their reserves, and what they can borrow and how many they have to pay if they go to the discount

window. that has a lot of influence. but the main flaw is that the engendered lower interest rates than the market. and that is why businessman does the wrong thing and the investor, and that's why they had a financial bubble. but they don't have a set time like every -- four times a year they sit down and do the interest rate. they might -- you know, there are certain times when it used to be every month they would change it. you know? the interest rates. but that's one the principals of a free market. you shouldn't do that. it helps the banks. what if you are a saver? what if you are skiddish and you put your money and protect your savings? you don't want to invest in stocks? you get, what, two percent or one percent? you know, at the same time, if you had market interest rates, see when the interest rates are, you know, we have the person

that's saving, that will adjust the interest rates. so the savers 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 capital out of thin air and pass it out and have interest rates low for when the interest rates are low, that means there are no savings. we had really low interest rates under greenspan, very low interest rates, at the same time there was all of the money and there was no savings. we weren't saving. so it's a distortion. so they should be out of the business of fixing interest rates. they also should be out of the business if you don't get rid of them over night. make sure they can't buy all of the government debt. that's with the problem is. >> thank you. >> hello, dr. paul. my name is christopher gosslan. i flew 29 hours from south

korea. i'm stations in the military, i wanted to come here today to give you something. i wanted to tell you i've been working for you since 2007 when i saw you cream rudy giuliani in that debate. [laughter] [applause] [applause] >> and i read some of those books that you put on the reading list. i like that. i came here today and i've been campaigning for you, even though you are in the in the oval office, we all think that you should be. [applause] >> i just want to let you know when i speak to people and i talk on your behalf and the points of liberty that i believe in, people say those are great ideas. the economic liberty, the educational liberty, the liberty that we could have so have this green revolution that so many young people want. they say, those things aren't tangible. they aren't here. how do we bring them about? people are necessarily on board,

but with what we're seeing and on board with these voices of liberty. how do we bring it about so that they could actually see it in their minds? because it's not there. how do we make them see it? the final thing is, i want to give this to you. i don't have anything for carol. are you here to say you are going to run for president in 2012? [applause] [applause] >> thank you. >> you know, that's really the bottom line. if the ideas are good and we accept them, what do we do about it? a lot of young people will come, what should i do tomorrow? run for congress? do this? the answer is do whatever you want. you know, do what you have to do? do what you know how to do? you are doing something. everybody does something by

doing nothing you are doing something. that's probably wrong. [laughter] >> but let me tell you if you have made it to this lexture and it's new, your life should be different. your life should be different if you accept the views. because you are in a unique category. because most people never care. they might vote, but not care until a week or two before the election or something. everybody has responsibility, more so when you know where the trouble is and you believe you know some answers. stimback to what do you do about it? well, an individual can run for office, support other people, get an education, get into the media, get into teaching, you know, all kinds of different things. might be just talking to your neighbors. you know, whatever starts. in the campaign that we had before, it was so spontaneous, i had never heard the team meet up groups. all of the sudden meet up groups

were all over the place. now there's something called facebook or something like that. i mean there's an opportunity to spread messages. the internet is fantastic. it's so much more than when i was in college and in the early years in politics that you couldn't spread this message. the energy from young people, i think, is just fantastic. but what the particular jobs is it's going to be difficult. the one thing that i'd like to work on in washington, because, i don't believe, you know, that legislatively, we are all of the sudden going to see the change. i'm not going to get the law passed that says we're going to abolish the fed. the fed is going to abolish itself. but what i always work on and we could do this in education, medicine, and money. that is keep the right to opt out. if you are unhappy with your educational system, we always whether you are in public schools or not, you always ought to argue the case that you have the personal responsibility and

the right to opt out of a public education system, teach at home, or teach in private schools because if we lose that, we lose an awfully lot. there are people in washington who would just as soon not have the independent-minded people in the home schoolers and private schooling. [applause] [applause] >> in medicine, they give us obamacare and people say we'd like to opt out. if we could just opt out. you know, there was a big fuss of opting out of obamacare. can you really opt out of medicare? i remember when my dad was 65. it pressures you into it. they always should protect our chance to do something else on our own and assume responsibility. so in medicine, it should be the medical savings account.

you take care of yourselves, and not depend on the government. and the money issue i work and have bills in and we're going to have things going on in the subcommittee. competition and currency. just legalize the right to use currency, gold and silver. which mean -- which means in order to legalize another gold and silver, you shouldn't have to pay sales taxes on buying your money. you shouldn't have to pay capital gains in case your money goes up in valley. then you should use your money in currency. legalize freedom. okay. one more question, i believe. >> your idea of liberty, dr. paul. i was wonder with the nonintervention, how should the u.s. react to egregious human rights abuses -- >> i'm sorry. i missed. react to? >> agreen human rights abuses and genocide in foreign countries and a lot of people

whether you agree with that or not, the human rights are threatened. >> yes, obviously those things go on. but our government, you know, like rwanda, things were going on and we totally ignored it. i wouldn't have advocated taxing you or sending you over there to solve our problem. our government, i would say, should say out of it. calling attention to it, and americans have been generous. to use force and violence to tax and force people to go over there and try to work out the problems, i don't believe we have the moral and legal right, i don't think it generally works. even when you have a humanitarian instinct, usually you are just giving the factions a weapon. because they use it against each other. all foreign aid, for whatever

reason, humanitarian or not, i think it represents not more than giving it from the poor people in this country and giving it to the rich people in those countries who happen to be the dictators. but obama expanded the bush doctrine a little bit. bush said you can go to war because -- preventive war. preventive war, serious i'm concerned, is like aggression. you might be doing us harm? we going to bomb you and take you over. obama is taking it one step further. yes, even for humanitarian reasons. oh, the iraqis are going to, you know, come with a nuclear weapon and bomb us. that sort of fear mongering. obama said gadhafi might hurt some of his people. therefore, we have to go over and preemptively start a war and don't have the ask the congress. we are every year getting worse

on that. that's why the principals are important. one more question? no, i think that'll do it. i thank you very much. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> on behalf of the college, take the small token of our appreciation. >> thank you very much. [applause] [applause]

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> next on c-span2, the house intelligence committee looks into the muslim brotherhood.

>> i think we are all ready, in thes -- both democrats and republicans to get the country on track. >> the debate is about more than spending levels, it's about the

role of the government itself. >> with the current year, lawmakers turn their attention to 2012 budget and the nation debt limit. watch online with the c-span video library. watch, search, clip, share, it's what you want when you want. >> house intelligence subcommittee recently held a hearing on the muslim brotherhood and the group's influence in the rest. founded in 1928, the egyptian group is the oldest and largest. witnesses included an egyptian-born islamic psychological already who is granted political asalem in the u.s., and the authors of two books. this is just under two hours. >> good afternoon, welcome. the house select committee on intelligence, the subcommittee on terrorism, human intelligence, analysis, and counterintelligence will come to

order. the first order of business is to welcome my ranking member, mike thompson, and the other members of the subcommittee, and those from the full committee who have joined us today. mike thompson is a good friend. like the chairman and ranking member of the full committee, mike and i are committed to working in a bipartisan fashion on the subcommittee whenever possible. we met recently to discuss the way ahead for the subcommittee, as a result we have a robust bipartisan plan for oversight of the areas of the subcommittees broad jurisdiction. today we're having an open hearing for the muslim brotherhood. open hearings are rare for the intelligence committee and subcommittees. chairman rogers and i feel the important issue should be discussed with the american people. as government are shaken in the arab spring, intelligence agencies across the world are studying what kind of governments would follow in a

new geopolitical landscape across the middle east. central to this discussion is the muslim brotherhood. founded in egypt in 1928, the muslim brotherhood was dedicated to implementing traditional islamic sharia law. an interesting debate mass arisen regarding the role of the muslim brotherhood and what they might play in future governments. some assert the muslim brotherhood has not announced violence and any inclusion will fundamentally undermine the democratic movements in governments. due to confusion about the nature and the tree of -- degref the threat, this poppic deserves further exploration. the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the activities of the muslim brotherhood both in the middle east and in the united states and in an effort to clarify what the group aims to do and how it pursues those aims. i seek to discourage a miscourse

about the muslim brotherhood to help assist analyst across the world who are struggling to understand what comes next in the middle east. additionally, this hearing will address how our government is and should be dealing with the muslim brotherhood. much as a confusion surrounding the muslim brotherhood stems from the boardment of violence. when the group declared it would no longer use violence to achieve it's goals, many in america and throughout the world seized to view it as the threat of any kind. the groups of parent embrace the democracy has further convinced some it is harmless and a harmless organization that shared the frees and freedoms-loving values of the rest of the world. however the depth of the brother's commitment to nonviolence is unclear. it may renounce violences to gain power in egypt, don't forget it is a parent organization to hamas, which pledges it's commitment to violence against israel and the founding charter.

in addition, the muslim brotherhood most influential theologian, usef has endorsed palestinian bombings, and recently proclaimed he wants to kill a jew before he dies. it is before the first sermon after the egyptian president mubarak was ousted in february. we believe also that we must look beyond tactics. whether they are violent or nonviolent, and explore the root issue and ideology. the 9/11 commission reports states and i quote that our strategy must match our means to two ends. dismantling the al qaeda network and prevailing in the longer term over the ideology that gives rise to islamic terrorism. end quote. that's why i believe when we talk about the threat, the

brotherhood possesses, we must not merely look at whether they are violent or nonviolent. we must also look at the extremist of ideology, and whether it leads to radicalization and ultimately acts of terrorism. my own view is that some of the changes in the muslim brotherhood are merely superficial. their abandonment of violence is arguably for tactical reasons and still opposed to general pluralism in the protection of minority right. nonmuslims and women are not afforded the same rights under the muslim's brotherhood. we need to examine when the true goal of setting a worldwidist rally regime is still in plate. the leader of the brotherhood in egypt from 1996 to 2002 wrote to jihad for ali is not limited to the specific countries, since the muslim homeland is one and

not divided. this is also an important issue because the muslim brotherhood appears to be active in the u.s., although not in the traditional sense. there are no card carrying members of the group here, there are no buildings on k street that say muslim brotherhood and the lobby director. instead the group spends it's influence through a large number of affiliated organization throughout the country. this allows the muslim brotherhood to muddy the waters when it comes to foreign funding and influence and hide behind group that is have plausible deniability of their involvement with the brotherhood when necessary. we know this because the department of justice produced clear evidence in the 2008 holy land foundation trial, the largest terrorism financial trial in american history that showed the muslim brotherhood is in america and outlined how it operates here. our witnesses today will be able to shed some light on the evidence produced in in trial and explain how the muslim brotherhood operated behind the

scenes. the federal government does not have a comprehensive or consistent strategy for dealing with the muslim brotherhood and it's affiliated groups in america. nor does it have a strategy for dealing with the brotherhood in egypt, or the greater middle east. a lack of understanding about the group has led to a classic case of government disorientation. we've heard the full spectrum and approaching to interaction with the brotherhood from various government officials. the same consistency makes me feel like the government is playing checkered while the muslim brotherhood is playing chess. i'd like to hear from our witnesses their views on what the policy should be in order to brotherhood. we will clarify by hearing some of the preeminent experts, including a local muslim leader, a expert who wrote a book, two gentleman that returned from egypt two days ago.

i thank you for being here. i know that's tiring. a professor that studied in political science and international affairs. we have a panel of experts, two of whom inviolated by the ranking member so we can have a discussion that addresses all sides of the issue. one the privileges of the intelligence community is we have access to personnel who provide us with classified information on matters of national security. as such, i intend to follow up on this hearing in the near future with a closed-classified hearing on the muslim brotherhood to allow subcommittee members to hear from the executive branch what the government knows about this group and what it's doing to address this threat. my hope is that this hearing will provide congress with a better understanding of the muslim brotherhood so that we can ask government officials more informed questions about their policies and strategies towards the muslim brotherhood. i'd now like to invite my

friend, the ranking member, to make an opening statement. >> thank you, madam chair, you are correct. we are friends. we enjoy a great relationship working together on these issues and others. and this is truly out of the ordinary to have an open hearing as the chair stated. they are rare in this committee. and the entire time i've been on the intelligence committee, this is the first subcommittee open hearing that i've participated in. i think the first one that we've had. so i appreciate the chair's effort to gather information and gather an understanding of some of the most thorny issues that we face today. so thank you for that, madam chair. welcome to all of the witnesses and thank you for taking the time to inform our subcommittee about your research and your experience with the muslim brotherhood.

intelligence oversight have an important and legitimate need to understand key organizations and individuals who influence events and countries that are important to the u.s., countries such as egypt. the muslim brotherhood is involved to some degree in reshaping the egyptian government. for that reason, this hearing can be productive if it provides a fact-based examination of the brotherhood's activities, objectives, and potential to affect u.s. foreign policy. however, just as important there are limits to what this hearing can or should accomplish. first and foremost, this hearing must not become a witch hunt. this is not about the vast majority of egyptian citizens who protested peacefully at tahrir square, nor is the hearing about the millions of muslim americans who contribute to the american society. intelligence oversight has absolutely nothing to do with

the constitutional activities of americans who practice religion, attract others to the religion, participate in the political process, or influence u.s. policy. which by the way in washington and state legislatures and city halls across our country, we call lobbying. second this hearing should not promote guilt by association. every organization has bad apples. so we should not judge an organization by only a few of its members. my understanding is than since the muslim brotherhood has a large written record, anyone can select statements to make a case for war against the organization. our experts can help us analysis the statements and provide the assessment of the brotherhood's true intentions. third, today's hearing is not about terrorism. as a member of the intelligence committee, i take very seriously our duty to protect our nation

and to counterterrorism. but let's be clear, the egyptian muslim brotherhood is not a state department designated foreign terrorists organization and according to the written testimony, it renounce violence years ago. fourth, this hearing is not an investigation into criminal activity. no one here speaks for u.s. law enforcement, or is a law enforcement officer. while we may need to follow up as the chair said, are closed hearing to find out if there are any muslim brotherhood-related violations of u.s. law, today's open hearing is not that forum. finally, i strongly believe that this hearing must not become yet another recruitment tool for extremist. experts in the field note that even in a free society, individuals can be driven to violence if they feel victimized. my hope is that nothing said can

be interpreted as targeting anyone. i knowoff also expressed the desire to have a serious discussion that does not offend any great law-abiding citizen. i'm eager to work together by keeping the session within firm parameters, connected to the intelligence. again, i appreciate our working relationship, i appreciate your willingness to try to find out the important information that we know, and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. thompson. we'll now turn to the witness testimony. our first witness is dr. satloff, he's the executive director of the washington institute for near east policy. as an expert on arab and islamic policies as well as middle east policy, he's one the foremost voices on the to to bics through the frequent guest appearances on news programs and regular contributions to major newspapers.

moreover he travels to the middle, he just returned from egypt. please proceed. >> thank you, madam chairman. it's a privilege to be able to present testimony to the subcommittee. i have a formal presentation for the record and i have a couple of brief comments. as you noticed, i did return from a fact-finding mission to egypt, which included intensive discussions with a range of actors, including members of the muslim brotherhood. with your permission, i will leave the discussion inside the united states to my colleagues and focus on the situation in egypt. first, prefatory comment, muslim brotherhood does not occupy by itself the islamic space. the actual issue of islamic challenge to egyptian politics is even bigger than just the brotherhood itself.

there are at least six different movements, parties, elements all along the spectrum in egyptian politics today. they range on the most radical from the killers of sadat who were released from prison in recent weeks and have formed their own political party. it includes extremely salefids who are now actively engaged in politics. they have been burning shrines and instigating violence against cops. there's the muslim brotherhood and the new party and some further liberal within the overall framework. it's impossible to know how much they matter indeed whether the brotherhood is trying to create the appearance of political division to make themselves look more moderate. and, in fact, to some egyptians, the appeal of the brotherhood is

that they are not as extreme as say the killers of sadat. we maybe reaping some of the negative benefits of this perception when egyptian eelections are held later this year. madam chairman, i believe deep concern and power broker in egypt is warranted. as i noticed in previous testimony, the brotherhood is not, as some people suggest it is, it is not an egyptian version of the march of dimes. it's not a social or humanitarian, committed to improving the welfare of the egyptian people. it is a profoundly political organization that seeks to reorder egyptian and muslim society in a certain political direction. tacticically, i believe the organization will exploit whatever opportunities it is offered. it has announced it's most ambitious goals and the violent means to achieve them, in my view, only as a result.

not a free choice of the -- by the leaders of the organization themselves. should the brotherhood achieve political power, it will almost certainly use that power to transform egypt into a very different place. the best base analogy would be turkey under it's current leadership when the secular state is being islamized. a more realistic situation would see deeper and more systemic of society. including the potential for frightening growth of sectarianism between muslims and cops and even deepening conflict between salefids and the more peaceful sufi brand of islam. however, while extreme wearniness is warranted, it would be a mistake for the united states to operate that the brotherhood's assertion to power is inevitable. in fact, that's dangerous and could lead to a self-fulfilling

prophesy. if we look at the election results in 2005 and the recent referendum, a majority of the voters do not support the muslim brotherhood. there's reason to believe if given the right amount of support, organizational backing and time, the nonislamic may triumph over the muslim brotherhood. still this is important for washington to be vigilant about the brotherhood. based on the words of islamic leaders and islamist in and around, the implications of success would be felt in numerous ways. from social morals to educational policy to egypt's regional policy. it would have particular impact on the peace with israel. they have been down playing their previous statements, calling for tending to adhere to

the treaty. they say now little more it's an issue that the new democratic parliament should address. most likely it's because of the firm position on the issue, making the treaty out of bounds for discussion in today's egypt at this moment before elections. however, in a islamized egypt, the future of egypt israel peace is likely to make the experience of the last couple of decades look positively warm and cozy. that will have the practical effort towards gaza and policing and sale of natural gas to israel, and continued operation of the qualified zones between egypt and israel, and, of course, in all of these ways and more, more islamist egypt would have serious for the bilateral

relationship. i believe it is important for the united states to strike a wise balance between on the one hand being alive to the dangers that the brotherhood and it's allies pose to critical u.s. interest on the one hand, and between avoiding giving the brotherhood a political gift in the form of certain lightning rod statements or actions that could motivate voters who are otherwise opposed to the brotherhood's message to come out and support the movement. privately, we should be working with the supreme military council so that technical decisions are made and framing an electoral process that does not inadvertently assist the brotherhood's political prospects. moreover we should share information on the foreign funding, gulf funding with the islamic parties and movements from the interests of outside

parties that might be committed to a greater islamization of an egyptian society. more generally, i believe it is most important for us to be clear to egyptian about the type of egypt with whom we have a firm partnership. an open, tolerant, respectful, democratic egypt. an egypt in which cops and muslims play the equal role. that's the egypt that we can work with. voters should know that is the type of egypt that we want to be able to see at the end of their electoral process. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. our next witness is dr. vidino. he's currently a visiting fellow at the rand corporation, which specialized islamization and violence in europe and north america. he's the author of two books, the latest of which as i mentioned "the new muslim

brotherhood in the west." i might also add that dr. vidino was supposed to be in europe today but changed his plans to be here. we appreciate that very much. thank you for doing that. and thank you for your testimony and please go ahead with your five minutes. >> thank you, chairwoman and members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting me today. as we observe the developments in egypt, it is important for us to take a broader perspective and analyze the global reach, including here in america. i would therefore like to divide my testimony in three parts. first i want to examine how the brotherhood operates here in the west. second, i want to discuss it's goals. and third, i want to provide a policy recommendation that i would call engaged but not empower. today groups in more than 80 countries pray for origin of the brotherhood and adopted forms and tactics. this includes the west where

more student groupings created in the 1960s and '70s by brotherhood organizations. let me be clear, it is incorrect to use the term muslim brotherhood in america if with this expression we mean that organizations in the united states are controlled by the brotherhood in cairo. but we are components of a monolithic hierarchical entity. yet, it is fair to say that in the united states and most western countries, the organizations that while operating independently have historical, financial, personal, organizational, and ideological ties to the global muslimhood. today tangs to combination of flexibility, unrelently activism, large funding, and the competing movements, brotherhood have gained significant influence. even if the membership has remained fairly small, they have

shown an enormous ability for discourse and positioned themselves at the forefront to be the main of western government and media. turning to my second point, the goals of the organization differ from both of the brotherhood in the middle east. although they would saver the introduction of sharia in the west, they are pragmatic and aware of what they can and cannot do. their priorities lay elsewhere. preserving the islamic identity among western muslims. the second goal is to be the representatives of the muslim community. the brothers understand that a relationship with western elites could provide them with financial and political capital that would allow them to significantly expand their influence inside the muslim community. so making a cleaver political calculation, the brothers seem to be muslimized, so has to

eventually obtain the same recognition within the community itself. analyst are deeply divided in the aseasesment. optimist argue they are simply a socially conservative force that accepting democracy and urge them to cooperate with them on terrorism and radicalization and other issues. and sinister agenda, and argue that thanks to the resources and most westerners, they are a modern day trojan horse. intelligence agency tend to share the pessimist view. in the united states, as elsewhere, there is no common assessment within government. this is effort if -- everyone --

leading to the frank and honest ideas. end of quote. it is apparent there is an understanding within the fbi while the affiliates may not be ideal, they are reaching out to the muslim community, they are necessary one. the relationship should not be more complex. the hearings shared by congressman king highlighted the story of the community reaching who was reaching out to stop the recruitment. but at the same time, they cooperated with the fbi in some terrorism cases like the northern virginia who traveled

in 2009. turning now to my first point about how policymakers should deal with the western mothers. many among the pessimist call for policies that would exclude the brothers from the engagement. while this position highlights troubling aspects of the brotherhood agenda that need to be addressed, such a position is unrealistic and counterproductive. the claims are over blown, brother organization do represent a cross section, talking only to leaders who position square with the government and pretending that more does not exist and is not a constructive policy. when western brother organization act outside of the law is when they provide financial support to groups designated as terrorists as happened in the past they should be prosecuted. most of the activities are within the law, they should be engaged. equally problematic is the

approach of the brothers. the aims of the brothers who have a response have stated publicly. official actions that would unnecessary empower a handful of self-appointed leaders who are clear since naive. i would argue a through nor knew answered way. first, government should reach out to a broad range of muslim organizations. because the brothers visibility should not be mistaken for representatives. second, engagement needs to be based on the firm understanding of the history, hot thus operandi, and aim of the brothers. finally, understanding between engagement and empowerment. limited forms of partnership can produce positive outcomes, particularly in the security field. but in entrusting them is a counterproductive policy. crafting a policy is not easy,

because u.s.-based brotherhood organization have been evolving in different ways and should not be seen as a monolithic organization, but pragmatic approach is needed to confront the largely unknown, but extremely important reality. i look forward to answering to your questions. >> thank you. our next witness is dr. mansour, he's an egyptian-born islamic scholar who was granted political asylum in the united states, and 25 articles on arabic, on topics of saudi arabia, reform in education, and women rights in the muslim world. dr. mansour is also the president of the international quranic center. >> thank you so much. i wait for this moment for ten

years. okay. let's begin. islam is an original piece and justice and freedom, speech and freedom. but mostly they establish their middle age and let all of the values and for justifiable, they are doing the invented sharia, social sharia counterproductive for islam. after that, the west and defeated muslims and muslims to find a way we have to choose one of two ways. one way is to restore the past. the past means -- so they wanted

to restore the set up. it's a powerful set up empire. and this is what they established their own state in 1745. the other choice led by egypt by the governor known as muhammad al bashar, he modernized. so there are two different ways. and muhammad ali is the one that destroyed the state in 1818. this gives one fact that the

states needs egypt to survive. so after that, it's really the sect, would reestablish and collapse it then the current by -- ellis road and establish the tip until he gives it his name and 1932. established in egypt, three organization to preach what happens under the name. because egypt at the time hated the name. so sharia becomes -- muslim become and then this was one and

his name pointed him as head of the muslim brother in 1928. this means all of the organization it created by the throat because the needs egypt to survive. and just gives us effect that it is a difference between muslim brothers, and muslim brothers is an organization that pads and it's a political agenda, and they are considered unique for all of the middle east and concentrate about just the preaching that we've been washing the mess. and looking after indicates to take over peacefully after all of the people become. so there's a difference between

the muslim brother who have their own agenda, political agenda. one that sadat supported, muslim brothers and the therapy to do that, muslim brother had at that time, many different that they had, [inaudible] so and so. the therapy get more support, sadat enables them to control most of the markets and in egypt and education and so on and so. you know that muslim brothers kill for that. when mubarak came, he supported so much. and for this therapy, he pitched us with the koran as original

piece and again we are prosecutorred by mubarak too please. when mubarak stepped down and on the surface, which used to used the therapy in egypt, now the therapy become not under control as it used to be. so they oppose themselves as they become now filling the space and they create them that future of egypt now have many disputes month among the leaders and between the leaders and -- but the therapy are now real danger.

more than that, when we let the celebrates, you know, have the r, egyptian majority, the silent euatian majority, it will be a big problem. looking at what happened. the therapy now will be appealing. it will be appealed after all of the officials got, it would be appealed not only the middle east, but also the american interest. going to america here, it is really important to know the difference between muslim brotherhood. most of them have their own political agenda. most here have not.

therapy here is different. it belongs to the face of dividing muslim brother and the therapy here are working for the same therapy agenda which belong to the dividing the war into two camps. the camps of the islam or muslim and the cap of -- so. i am thinking about their own in our most particular agenda. they believe that the final will come just before the day ends of the war. and they will.

there are other, so they need some people to be in the enemy camp to make the muslim community here in west and in the u.s. fit the column. so they control most of the mosquing here and islamic schools and others to brainwash people, the muslim community here to be just like them. this is a big problem. i'm not talking about just -- just talking about i have evidence now. i look at this. this is the official translation made by the saudis. official translation of the

koran. they mistranslate the koran. not only in the main translation, but also in the footnotes. four million copies of this transition -- translation. >> if you can make it quick, we are going to have to go quote. >> okay. i won't. you know, as a muslim we pray five prayers every day. we site out of the opening and this is opening will be to guide us. and here in the footnote, they describe the aggression and the duals to be the enemy of the guy. that