"on god we trust," but right in the middle of the fourth verse in the star spangled banner, it says in god is our trust, and that's why we are going to take that shining city on a hill back to the top of the hill where it belongs. this is the greatest country in the world, and we are going to keep it that way. thank you for being here. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, all, so much. suspect it symbolic of this campaign and the future of our country that as herman cain was speaking, the sun came out. [cheers and applause] can we say 9-9-9 is morning in america again? [applause]

i just want to close out by introducing my two fellow co-chairs of the opportunity zone, herman cain, has asked us to join his army, and we saluted geraldo oregon -- gonzalez, of the business round table, thank you. with these two fine gentlemen and over a dozen advisers, volunteers, and supporters, we plan to take these opportunity zones to every depressed region in the country and change our country as we help elect herman cain, president of the united states. [applause] let me ask to close out bishop holmes to do a closing prayer. thank you, all, for coming.

>> thank you, niger. this time with bowed heads, almighty, eternal god, creator of the universe, we bow our heads in the spirit of humility giving thanks with this gift of a leader you have imparted untoe this nation for such a time as this. as we are confronted with life and with situations of challenge, we ask that you restore the hope of america. you give vision and clear and con size revelation to this leader, and as he embarks upon this journey from the grass roots to the white house, set his feet in the white house to bring redemption to this country, wrap your living arms around him so no evil can harm he and his family, in the end, let us all enjoy life, liberty,

and the pursuit of happiness. war without end, god bless america, and god bless you today. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> it spans the base, take care

of the poor. see, they going to ask me what do you think about their plan. i'll say, well, i'm going to read the plan before i comment on it. >> [inaudible] >> i'm going to read the whole thing, and then make my assessment, you know? >> hey, herman cain, can you sign this? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> you know, we are in a few organizations. >> sure. >> but i just admire you, you know, and the 9-9-9 -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i'm not personalizing it, i have too many to do, but i appreciate it. talking jobs, jobs, jobs, how are you? >> you said you got one plan, you got two because you have 9-9-9 and 9-0-9. >> that's right. >> you got to say both of them. >> all right.

>> last one, and then i have to go to this media. [inaudible conversations] all right, got to go to the meeting. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> what is the scientific evidence that being gay is a matter of choice? can you point to studies that determine that position? >> well, show me the scientific

evidence that says that it's not. next question. >> there's plenty of scientific evidence. the fact is you can't point to anything that supports that notion. >> my question is over the last couple days, there's back and forth on -- [inaudible] do you see yourself as flip-flopping? your opinion on guantanamo, abortion, a series of them. >> in a couple instances, and we have to take them one by one, i said i misspoke because of the pace of the particular entity. i don't flip-flop. i'll explain to people what i really meant. let's take the guantanamo. we were talking about israel and the decision that the prime minister benjamin netanyahu had made, and i tend to make a point he has to consider a lot of things, i'm sure, before we make that decision, so on the surface, i couldn't say whether or not i agree or disagree, and then changing the subject so you

know, you think you would consider doing something, and i didn't immediately associate that. i didn't backtrack. i explained that i misspoke, and then i moved on. i was misinterpreted talking about the whole abortion thing. it's clear where i stand on abortion. i'm pro-life from conception, no exceptions. i will sign anything to defund parenthood, i will not support government money spent on abortions, on down the line. when you talk the abortion issue, the different components of it, and they took it totally out of context. i would rather correct something that i said than to try and leave it out there such that it can be misinterpreted. >> sending mixed messages -- >> no, it doesn't send mixed messages. it shows i'm willing to correct myself, you know? i'm willing to correct myself

if, in fact, i need to correct myself for clarity. that's what i'm trying to achieve. >> mr. cain, what do you see as major obstacles to winning michigan especially with mitt romney from the state? >> the biggest challenge in winning michigan will be getting my message out to the citizens here in michigan, going up against the amount of money that i'm sure governor romney will be able to throw against it. >> how do you overcome that then, sir? >> i'm just going to be here a lot. that's how you overcome it. we have a plan to be here a lot in order to directly take my message to the people. >> herman cain? >> yes, sir? >> when you step out from front of that building behind you? >> when i look at the building behind me, i see opportunity if we get capital gains out of the way. there are a lot of people in this country that have money, and capital gains is a wall between people with money and people with ideas.

this economy was built based upon people with ideas that entrepreneurial spirit, but because taxes and regulations have gotten so bad, people with money don't want to take risk. one of our guiding principles for the whole 9-9-9 plan is that risk taking drives growth. that is the growth opportunity right there if we open it up for people who have money would be willing to take the risk. [inaudible conversations] >> the attacks in your plan is unfairly going to -- [inaudible] >> it was in the original analysis. i simply -- we simply chose not to talk about it earlier such that we should get people used to the whole concept. we didn't want to put it all out there at once even though it was right there in the analysis. we wanted to treat this

separately so people could build upon the information we had, but it's been in the analysis all along, people just didn't read it, and they dent get to that point, and 5 lot of these false accusations are now proven wrong. >> have you talked with the owner -- [inaudible] >> no, i have not, no, i have not. >> he's a billionaire, he had the building for 20 years, he's allowed it to rot. how does capital gains have anything to do with that? >> well, it would depend what he wants to do with his money. maybe it's not that billionaire. maybe that billionaire is sitting on the building waiting to sell it so he can avoid capital gains. i don't know because i don't know that billionaire. if you remove the wall, maybe he will do something with it. >> [inaudible] well, it would still be 9-9-9, but on the first nine, the choice, if they qualify, would

make additional deductions that everybody else could make. for example, and it would require some analysis and the reason that i can't give an exact number is because there's a lot of things in the tax code we have to work out, you know, with congress through the budget. here's an example. right now, the first nine, business can deduct purchases that they make from u.s. companies, especially, to produce their product. you can't deduct payroll, but if you qualify as an opportunity zone, you might be able to deduct part or all of the payroll which lowers the amount and lowers your taxes. that's just one thing. >> well, thank you all very much, and remember, 9-9-9 is jobs, jobs, jobs. thank you very much. >> will you give us a song next time? >> probably not. [laughter] >> it wasn't that bad. i saw the youtube clips.

[laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, sir, thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> hey, how are you? >> i'm great. >> roger, yeah, i remember you. how are you doing? great to see you, man. >> mr. president -- >> who said something about backing down. >> i did. >> i ain't backing down.

>> thank you for that. [laughter] >> appreciate it, appreciate it. very good. [inaudible conversations] >> i got -- [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> got to do it while we walk, while we walk. thank you, sir, thanks for being here. thanks for being here. hey, young man, hey, did you get it? can you get it? hold the pen. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. >> appreciate it, man.

>> thank you, appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] >> i appreciate that, thank you. thank you very much. i appreciate that. [inaudible conversations] >> all right, i got you. thank you, ma'am, thank you for being here. let me sign that. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, darling. thank you for being here. keep me in your prayers. thank you, sir. >> keep the bus on the move. >> all right. thank you. how are you doing? thanks a lot, folks. thank you, thank you for being here, it's wonderful. how are you? hi, michael, how are you doing? good to meet you. thank you. thank you very much. i appreciate it.

okay. [inaudible conversations] >> thanks 5 lot. how are you? >> good. >> thank you for being here today. thank you so much for being here. here we go with these baseballs again. you all know how hard this is? [laughter] that's right. there you go, man. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> two more. one, two, three. >> appreciate it. it's a pleasure, pleasure.

>> i hear you. >> thank you, detroit, thank you. >> watch more video of the candidates, so what political reporters are saying and rack the latest campaign contributions for c-span's website for 2012. it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns, candidate bios and the latest polling data plus links to c-span media partners. all at c-span.org/campaign 2012.

>> republican presidential candidate spoke friday night at a youth rally at the university of iowa. it was part of a two-day campaign tour of the state. earlier in the day he was in newton, davenport and burleson. tomorrow he travels to des moines to participate in the iowa faith and freedom coalition presidential candidate forum at the iowa state fairgrounds. we'll have live coverage on c-span beginning at 7:00 pm eastern time. this road to the white house campaign event is 45 minutes. thank you very much. i was told it was a weekend and

not too many of you would show up. thank you for coming. [applause] >> i do want to introduce my family members here. my wife, carol, please stand. [applause] >> and two granddaughters, lisa and linda. [applause] >> but it is great to see such a nice enthusiastic crowd. i give speeches on occasion, you know, in washington but i don't get any applause at all. [laughter] >> and you know i'm very sympathetic to the younger people, those under 30. they seem to understand what liberty is all about so much better than some of the -- some of those individuals that have been in washington way too long and they don't have the vaguest idea of what liberty is all

about. [applause] >> but to tell you what, i get encouraged a whole lot when i visit with young people, college students because i know that the future looks bright when i meet with you. so i'm enthusiastic. i hope i can encourage but because the stakes are high. the stakes are very high on what's happening and i think that's what's happening, the people are coming to realize this. but liberty is my real issue. i do talk about economics. i talk about balanced budgets. i talk about foreign policy and the federal reserve and a few other things. but really the issue is liberty. i believe our country had been the greatest and the most prosperous because we had a better understanding about liberty than any other country. we didn't have a perfect constitution.

but i think of liberty as being simply self-ownership. who owns you, who owns your life. who has the responsibility for you? i come from a natural rights viewpoint similar to what jefferson talked about, natural rights, god-given rights that our lives and our liberties come outside of government. and government was not created there to allow us to have liberty. if we're going to have government, it should be limited -- it should be precisely to protect those liberties that are rightfully our own. [applause] >> but certain things come from

this understanding of self-ownership. of course, it means that it's your body. and people shouldn't tell you what you should do with your body. it tells you what you can do with your liberty, you should use your liberty from my viewpoint and from my advices use it in a productive manner. i see the liberty as a release of creative energy and the purposes to work for excellence in virtue believing that once you deliver that responsibility to government, all they do is undermine liberty. and it ruins the efforts to be productive and to improve one's self. but if one is convinced that we have this responsibility, it means two things. one, that you deserve to keep the fruits of your labor, which means there shouldn't be an income tax. [applause] >> now, that -- that part is easily understood. the second half of it is not quite as easily accepted by

some. but that is if you have your right to your life and your liberty and to your property, you also have to assume the responsibility for any bad choices you make, and you can't go to your neighbor or your government to bail your out. [applause] >> it's been pretty well accepted in this country that these principles mean that you have a right to deal with your spiritual life any way you see fit. you can ignore it and not pay any attention to it or you can practice your spiritual life any way you want as long as you don't hurt other people. but you're also allowed to pursue your intellectual life any way you see fit. we don't hopefully never get to that point, we shouldn't be in the business of book-burning and saying you can't study this, you can't study that. it should be you that makes the

decision. and for the general -- in a general sense the american people have accepted this notion fairly well. far from perfect but fairly well but where i think we have fallen down and this is across the political spectrum is this idea that it's your own body. that means if your spiritual life which is a serious life and your intellectual life is a serious responsibility, why is it that if we assume that you can have free decisions there, why shouldn't you have free decisions on what you eat, drink, smoke and put into your own body? [applause] >> spiritually we could argue if you make a mistake you'll have to deal with that. in maybe another life.

intellectually if you mistake mistakes you have to deal with that yourselves. but if you make mistakes about making decisions on what you do with your own body you can suffer the consequences. but if you once embark on this notion as our country has now for hundreds -- you know, hundred years essentially that we have reneged on this and assume that the government will protect us from ourselves, a very dangerous notion. if the government assumes that its responsibilities is to protect you from yourself, it has to deal with every habit that you engage in. and it is impossible to do that and still have a free society. the free society is a wonderful thing because i see it as opening up the opportunities for creativity. but if we accept this notion that the government should tell us how to run our lives, the most important of practical, impractical result of this is that it destroys -- it destroys the productivity of all of us.

it means that we will be poorer. a -- [applause] >> now, at least many that challenge these notions all the way from extreme communist socialist viewpoint to the extreme welfarist who believe the government has to regulate the economy for the benefit of one group or another. but it does create prosperity but it's hard to accept if you have a free prosperous society where you can use your own incentives to advance yourself,

guess what you don't have an equal society and that's difficult for people to understand. but if the results are that you have the most prosperity and you have the largest middle class and the best distribution of wealth and by far it's the best system to argue for and to work for. [applause] >> if the government's job is to make people equal, then it's their job to without. guess what, we're looking as equality of poverty. that's what we're working on, unfortunately. [applause] >> now, the free market austrian school of economics teaches one thing that government intervention doesn't work. it doesn't even come close to achieving what it pretends to achieve but there's one other basic principle when it comes to monetary policy. any society that embarks on the

destruction of their currency, that is by increasing the money supply without anything behind the currency itself and devaluing the currency there's essentially always of a transfer of wealth from the middle class from the poor to the wealthy. and just think of this today, how -- what's the main complaint? there's a large segment who are hurting and there's a small segment that's getting very, very wealthy. i see this as very, very important and also a little risky in how we deal with this. because there are in a free society -- i said it was unequal and there will be some rich and some poor but if a person is rich because they've been successful and because they have been voted to be rich by the consumer, see, the only mistake, of course, is a risky adventure pure democracy undermines the minority and we don't want puremacy but in the economimacy really prevails because every

single person that spends every dollar are voting on the product. and that means if we could have a society where nobody got special privileges, where nobody got benefits, nobody got the edge by government force and government contracts and then somebody is capable because they're bright and they'll work hard and produce a product that we the consumer likes, that individual -- if he becomes wealthy we have voted him his wealth. we have voted him the wealth because we like his product. but if an individual becomes wealthy because they have an inside track to easy money and easy credit and also when they gamble with this money in the derivatives market and they go grow and they go crying to the government and saying, look, we're broke, if you don't bail us out there will be a depression give us money if they get rich the wrong way and get bailed out the wrong way, they deserve a lot of criticism.

mra[applause] >> unfortunately, we have a lot of that's been going on for a long time. there's been everything from subsidies to special privileges and special contracts and, of course, we have this whole idea about how we spend our military money. that has, you know, enriched many. buying weapons we don't need and riching the industrial military complex, that is where you can't resist any military spending and that you have to endlessly fight wars if you're not -- and if not, you're not patriotic. so in order to attack that, we also have to understand foreign policy. in the foreign policy of a free society and the society that protects your individual rights, a free society under those

conditions says, we as a country have a right to defend us if we're under attack but we have no moral authority to force ourselves on other people and we have no moral authority -- [applause] >> and we have no moral authority to accept this notion of preemptive war. they make it sound fancy. they make it sound like we have preemptive war because they're going to attack us some day and some day they might get a weapon and they might come and get us so we have to go and get them. that is just open-ended. it's also called aggression and we are drifting into that direction and we want friends around the world and we waste our money and we become more endangered and we develop more enemies. [applause] >> so we have to address the

subject and your generation will have to do it because this system will not work. i have argued for many years about a noninterventionist foreign policy and i have always been convinced that i will win this argument, we will win this argument, our side will win. i wish they would win just by being convinced on a moral basis and on practical reasons that we should not be doing this but we will win the argument about getting our troops home. not for those reasons as much as we're going broke, and we can't afford it anymore. the sooner we bring all our troops home, the better it will be for our economy. [applause] >> this is just not bringing

them home from the war. we're bringing them home from the leftovers from the old wars. why are we in japan? come home from japan. come home from korea. come home from germany. there's no reason for us to be subsidizing them. [applause] >> now, as a constitutional president, i would be very cautious to be looking toward the proper procedure and working with the congress. but in the area of foreign policy and the movement of military troops, the president does have this authority. i don't even have to ask permission to move the troops around. there is no declared wars. so if we are able to achieve this victory we can immediately bring the troops home instead of building more and more bases overseas like we're doing now we

have 900 bases we're building more of these drone bases just aggravating the people of the world, i would say bring the troops home, open up some of those bases that they closed in the 1990s. they closed bases in the 1990s at the same time they were building bases in saudi arabia causing more trouble. so it's really time at least to get those troops home immediately. let them spend their money at home for a while. that would give us is bit of a boost. mra[applause] >> one of the reasons i went into medicine because i do remember world war ii and korea and i hadn't decided what profession to go into, one of the things that motivated me to go into men's was the fact that i never wanted to carry a gun. i never wanted to shoot anybody and i thought, well, i'll probably be drafted some day and i'm not certainly going to play that game in war.

and lo and behold i was drafted in 1962 and ended up being in the service for about five years. but the military draft -- if you think of it it's still on the books. you still have to register. it's always the assumption there's that position taken to make sure that the government knows that they own you and they'll take you and put you into the military when they want to. so in a free society you don't have -- you normally don't have registration but you never have a military draft either. [applause] >> we should be willing to defend our country. and it should be, you know, across the spectrum. age shouldn't matter. sex shouldn't matter if we're under attack. but this idea that we go and look for wars to fight because we're spreading our exceptionalism. you know, america had been an exceptional company but this whole idea that we're so

exceptional now that we're going to force it down the throats of everybody and they don't accept us and we're going to bomb them to oblivion and we call that american exceptionalism. i would say that if we want to spread our goodness and our good values has become good, and become valuable and protect -- [applause] >> before we preach to others and enforce laws and try to enforce laws in other countries and protect civil liberties, make sure everybody in this country is protected from the -- from our government's interfering with our civil liberties. that's what we need to protect. [applause] >> set a good example. [applause] >> you know, they claim that we're in a war against terrorism. and they use that term rather loosely because terrorism, of course, isn't a country, how can you declare war against

terrorism. terrorism is a it can particular. it's a wicked mean tactic. timothy mcveigh was a terrorist in that sense and because he was a american, well, we have to protect america because timothy mcveigh was a american. it's only there to make sure we're intimidated and that if you don't obey exactly what they want, that you're unpatriotic just like what happened in world war ii. and the bigger the wars, the more likely they are to undermine our personal liberties and just look at during world war ii how we had concentration camps for the japanese americans. once again, it was a violation of the principle. who owns that life, the people who were incarcerated didn't commit a crime but it was assumed the government owns that life and they can do what they want. the tax code is built on this assumption that the government owns your life. because they say if your tax

rate is 40% and i offer to lower it, the people who believe in big government can't come back and say you can't do that. it will cost the government too much money but think about that. how is it going to cost the government money if we're taking your own money back or not taking enough from you. it's the assumption that they own all your income and you'll get to keep a certain percentage under their conditions. so thinking about this is self-ownership in economic terms or in personal liberties or the draft, very, very important. but we have gone and drifted a long way from that and i've been too casual about it. it is easy to blame a lot of different sources and a lot of different people for this, we certainly can blame our government because they've been neglect whether it's the executive branch, the judicial branch or the legislative branch. but in reality, the government reflects what the people have allowed to happen. so it's a responsibility of the

people stem cell. and this is why we need to get a whole generation, plus many more, get energized and understand what true liberty is. that we were on the right track that the constitution gave us is pretty good start and we have drafted so far and now we have a foreign policy we don't even consult with the congress anymore. we don't -- we don't get a declaration of war. it's just so vague. and now not only do we have -- we don't have a president to even consult with the congress, just think libya, libya, oh, yeah it's a great victory yesterday and the president is bragging about it. you know, i got another one. but how can -- how can we be proud of that? i mean, no matter how bad a guy was, whose responsibility -- it's the responsibility of people of libya to make their self-determination and deal with that. no, we've ended up paying for

this. it was our bombs and weapons for this and believe me it will be our burden. it will not go away. i mean, just think of all the billions of dollars we gave to egypt to prop up and pretend we have peace in the region and our dictator gets overthrown and now it's more dangerous than ever and this is what we did in saddam hussein and we gave him support and finally we decided we did with noriega and we did it -- you know, we were involved in iran. they were on their way to developing a pretty democratic system so in 1953, we said, no, we don't want you to have democracy you might keep all your oil so we want to have our dictator in so we installed the shah and he was brutal. and then after, what, '53 up to '79, what did it do? it stirred up hatred and antagonism not against the shah but against us. there's problems with long time

ramifications, the unintended consequences. the blow-back from it. what if we were in afghanistan and actually attempting to be on the right side of the issue when the soviets were in there we were on the same side as bin laden and they invadet the country and we'll help you throw them out and we decided it was our country and we were going to stay. it makes no sense, whatsoever. it's a schizophrenic foreign policy. i only said we have two options one that we tell the dictator what to do and if he didn't we don't kill him. and i thought those were the only two options if you look at pakistan they actually came up with a third option and the third option is we'll do both. we'll keep bombing you and undermining and killing people and making them mad at their own government because our own government supports and we give them money and then we wonder

why there's chaos in that country. but i'll tell you what, there is another option of all those three. and that is the one that the founders advised that gabrielle advised very strongly in his farewell address and that is making friends with those who want to be friends and making trade with those who want to trade. not to get involved in internal affairss or in entangling offenses. i can't think of getting any more entangling than getting involved with the world bank and the imf involved in these institutions. [applause] >> so bad as it has been in the decades of undeclared war. it's now worse we went into libya and now uganda with no consultation with the congress and saying, you know, this is the problem we have and try to

make any argument it is for national security reason. none of that. it's totally ignoring the people and the congress in going and getting the permission from the united nations and the troops going in and the money going in under nato. this is a major step toward world government. and also many that like world government are very much aware of the same thing that many others are aware of. that our financial system is very, very shaky. and there will have to be a new monetary system because money printed out of thin air eventually self-destruction and we're seeing the middle of this self-destruction. many will have to see there will be a new currency. i know a good way of starting that why don't we look and find out what the constitution says. it says only gold and silver can be legal tender. that would be a good start in the right direction.

[applause] >> but there are many planning that the reforms will come and there will be a new currency. it will be of paper money loosely run by the united nations. this is when we'll have to make a decision on whether we think we should maintain our national sovereignty. you know, i think the states should run most of the government. the government was never meant to be large in washington. [applause] >> but over the decades we have allowed so much of the government to go to washington and now it's shifting into even international government. once again we have to decide where our rights come, where our national sovereignty comes, where our personal liberties come from and decide what we want from our federal government. the founders literally they ask the question what should the role of the government be and they didn't like the role of the king. i'll tell you what, by my estimation and by others the

role of the king was minor compared to what the king of washington is doing to us today. [applause] >> but there's no doubt that this government could not be this big if we had not allowed the control of the money to get out of the hands of the marketplace and out of the hands of something of real value and, of course, that occurred in 1913 with the introduction of this notion that he should with have a federal reserve system. they do a lot of mischief and the very first thing we should be demanding which i've been demanding for years, we got a partial of it done. that is they need a full fledge audit to find out exactly who their studies are and who's getting the bailout. [applause] >> so you knew the next step.

very good. the fed will be ended but it will be ended when we have to come home from overseas but the thing i would like to do is help prevent that crisis from coming, you know, where we end up literally with run away influential, the inflation of the dollar and since there's no foundation to our monetary system or economic system, that could happen rather rapidly anytime. right now, we're getting a raprevious and taking the dollar and it isn't because the world is in flux. all you have to do is look at the news. you don't have to go to grease agrees to find out the unhappiness and the -- how disgruntled people are. all you have to do is go to a few of our cities.

people are becoming very much aware of a serious problem. the big question is what are we going to replace it with. hopefully we will have the right explanation to replace it with the proper form of government. the kind of answers that our founders gave us and they wrote a document which was intended in no way to restrict you. it was written to restrict the federal government. [applause] >> but as long as there is a federal reserve system and it's allowed to exist of it facilitates the deficit financing. if you had sound money, if you couldn't print money out of thin air and you had somebody who wants to spend money on an entitlement system in order to buy votes or a lot of money to be spent on policing the world, satisfies the special interest, we could tax but there wouldn't be enough money and then we could start borrowing and there still wouldn't be enough money

and that's when they resort to the inflation. the amazing thing is that our government and our country has gotten away with it for so long. but the world has trusted us because we have been and still are -- we still are probably the wealthiest country in the world and we have a lot of weaponry and there's a false illusion that we're there forever. but now that we're the biggest debtor in the history of the world ever and we know this end is coming to this, and we have to replace it with something. so it is -- the basic question we have to ask what should the role of government be and what does liberty mean. does anybody mean something to us or are we frightened by it. are we insecure and have government to take care of us and make sure that they will protect us from all dangers? you know, basically we're not safe because we have a big government. we're not safe because there are a lot of policemen. we're safe basically because most people assume that they have to protect themselves and

one of the reasons we were given in the second amendment to make sure we were safe. [applause] >> unfortunately, in my lifetime there's been a transition away from the way we one time even looked at our local police, let alone the federal police. we have 100,000 federal bureaucrats now who regulate us and our property and march into our businesses and they're carrying guns. i would say those are the guns that we ought to regulate. to regulate the guns of these bureaucrats. [applause] >> but the -- even the local -- local authorities have become more authoritarian the way they

enforce what they consider the legitimate laws. right now there are 50,000 break-ins by police without proper search warrants that are sting operations looking for somebody that might be smoking cigarettes or making -- smoking marijuana. so they break into these houses and i read a terrible story today of -- one of these operations. they broke broke in and it was in an ex-marines' house. he had been to iraq and he put his family in a closet so he pulled his gun but he heard somebody banging on the door and busting in so he had a gun in his hand and the door -- finally opened the door and he never shot a shot. he didn't even take the safety off of his gun and he ended up with 32 bullets in his head and his body. and he had nothing in his house. so what are we doing to ourselves? you know, yes, we take an oath to defend our constitution

against all enemies, foreign but right now i really fear for the destruction of my liberty and your liberty from domestic crap today. [applause] >> not only did the founders understand exactly what self-ownership meant, they also translated that into seeing that liberty was a whole piece. it wasn't in part. today we sort of break it up. we have economic liberty and personal liberty. we actually even have freedom of speech broken up. we have political speech or advertising or commercial speech. speech is speech and freedom is freedom and economic freedom is the same as personal liberty. it shouldn't be mixed up. [applause] >> so we have to put that back

together again. and we have to have the confidence that a free society is the best. and right now i'm afraid that we're probably on the minority side of this believing that only government can take care of us. so we have to have a new understanding and a new conviction that what we want to be -- what we want to have is be able to live in a free society and have the right to our lives and the right to our bodies and the rights to the fruits of our labor. this will give us the prosperity that we really want and i believe that if you translate that into the proper foreign policy, this is what is going to give us peace as well. if we can't have a system of peace and prosperity, how can we lose the argument? so if we don't do this, the problems are going to get much, much worse and there will be more undermining of liberty. and in that case, then it's going to become more chaotic.

if we don't do something about it and get a handle on it, my meager suggestion on the campaign right now in getting the handle on the budget is in the very first year cut a trillion dollars in the budget and be serious about it. [applause] >> i start with getting rid of five of the departments. there's too many departments in washington. we don't need them. [applause] >> and i cut the military budget. don't say defense. i don't want to cut defense. the military budget down to $500 billion and they're nearly hysterical because in washington you're not even allowed to cut a nickel of the budget whether it's the democrats or the republicans because then you're un-american and you do not support the troops. the one thing that i'm proudest

about in our campaign last go around and this go around and it's even more so is the fact that i have been accused of not supporting the troops and that i'm unpatriotic and un-american because i won't support these wars. but when it comes to donations, i have the three top groups of individuals you can look on the computer and put them in a category on what their occupation is. the top category of donations coming from individuals come from the u.s. air force. [applause] >> the second is the u.s. army. [applause] >> and the third is the u.s. navy. [applause] >> he -- so this whole notion that people go into the military just to go and fight wars,

useless wars that aren't even declared, is complete nonsense. they're willing to defend our country but they don't want to just go to war for the sake of war. they think it's good sense to say it's so rarely that you have to go win it and do it properly and make a proper declaration but make sure we really have an enemy and don't make it so vague and that's coming from our military people. .. and that's coming from our military, people. [applause] now there is another candidate and i will let you guess who it is that he's in the polls right now, and we looked at his top tree donations and they all came from three big banking institutions. [booing] i wonder if the get we do live in crucial times, and

we do need a reenergized defense of liberty. we have to understand what it is, put it back together because we did have a wonderful test in this country. we had the freest country, most prosperous country, largest middle class ever, but it's not there anymore. the class is shrinking, the poor are growing, the rich are richer, and most make money off the system, so this -- this is being challenged, but we now had that experiment. we had, you know, a great system, but now we don't have that, and if you think about it historically, freedom has not been, you know, overly successful in that not many countries really enjoyed it. even today, think about how many countries do not have real freedom, and also, they don't --

we don't have real freedom anymore, but there's so many that throughout history, that's been that way. most of history's been dominated by tyranny, and today, the americans are anowed, upset, and confused at times, but i don't know that they clearly understand that the major problem is we're having less and less freedom and more and more tyranny, and it's going in the opposite direction, and we need to change that direction. that's my goal and my intent to fight for the cause of liberty to make sure we have the maximum amount of freedom in the maximum amount of prosperity in this country. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] [applause]

[chanting] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you for coming. >> thank you for coming. >> i interviewed you a couple months ago. >> oh, okay. good, good. >> thank you so much.