usually this means somebody else's sacrifice in terms of somebody else paying taxes or somebody else dealing with the government. very rarely does it entail any sacrifice on their parts. well, your generation and what you have done overseas is going beyond the talk, and they are actually showing that you're willing to make this commitment. ..

dan to being comfortable back at home. and that is the question america is going to face. it transcends all the issues we are facing today. what kind of health care system we are going to have, what kind of tax policy were going to have. but even more importantly than not, how are we going to measure whether the american experiment is working. you see, the american ideal, the american spirit is one that says, we are all equal. why? we have been created so by our creator. [applause] and in front of the law, we are equal for that reason. that is the measure of the quality. now it's always struck me as odd because people on the left want to use a different yardstick.

their yardstick is your measure of quality based on material things. the quality that matters most to them is income equality and economic equality. i find that's so ironic because they are the ones that call last materialistic. but my point is this, those are the two choices that we will face and those are the two choices that we are going to have to make as to whether the country is going to embrace the equality that is the american tradition or the equality that is what the left has to offer. we are also going to have to choose, how much do we really value freedom? are we going to be seduced by the idea that giving away freedom for some comfort is okay. would we rather -- what we as individuals rather be struggling free man or slaves? would we rather be those

individuals who are working to instill the kind of values that lead to independence and excellence, or the kind of society that encourages dependence and tears down those of excellence. and i would contend to you that that issue is very much open to question. as much as it was open to question in 1776 during the american civil war were during world war ii. now, because we embrace the need to embrace the notion that the spiritual values of freedom are more important than the material world and the material success, it means that we embrace the notion and have to embrace the notion that there are certain absolute values. there are certain things that are just absolutely right and certain things that are just absolutely wrong. otherwise, it is very easy to drift into a world where you are

willing to compromise freedom for comfort. you know, i do discussion a couple years ago when i speak in on college campus, a rather angry young lady came up to me after i talked about the need for absolute values. she talked to me about the fact that no, absolute values aren't absolute. they are really a tool of oppression. they are a tool of oppression used by white males, by the ruling class to control others. and that she rejected completely the idea that there were already absolute values, that there were any absolute rights in any absolute wrongs if everything is relative and you can always find a reason when something may be justified. at which point i told her, i have an absolute statement for you. you can agree or disagree. in my statement was, rape is always wrong. she couldn't disagree with me.

she would have nothing to say. there are absolutes in me to say what the absolute power. but if there are four, we are not ready to say they're absolute things we're fighting for, then guess what? the fight for freedom is over because we will always, as flawed human, choose the cowardly of compromise and comforts and material -- some relative material abundance over the struggle of freedom. it is only a belief in an absolute truth that will lead an individual like our founding fathers to give up the material possessions to fight for something that is far, far more important. i would also contend to you that these absolute values spring from an american tradition. these are not new ideas. these are ideas that are inherent to the western notion -- the western notion of judeo-christian values. what i mean by not?

i mean that the founding fathers were very clear that the belief in the power and value of the individual springs directly from the idea that each person has value. why does each person has value? because we decided it was so? know, the idea of individualism springs directly from the judeo-christian idea that everyone, by their creator was created for a purpose and everyone has equal value. now, this is a value in a view that is, today, and we here at all the time. but if you look over the expanse of world history, if you look over the expanse of the globe today, you will quickly realize how rare that the uas. and i would contend to you that absence those traditions and those beliefs, it is very, very hard to have the absolute values you need to fight for the principles of freedom.

now, i have a confession to make to you tonight. i'm not confession is your generation is going to have a very difficult time. you know we'll have a difficult time? and your parents are not going to let a told you this. our generation has failed you. we have failed you because you know, you are a generation that is growing up saddled with debt, debt that other generations didn't have to face. and you were growing up in a society, where freedom is still prevalent in your parents are working to instill those values inyo, but freedom is slavery ended this way for them because those of us of our generation didn't do all that we needed to do to try to preserve it. so you are a generation to use the olympic analogy that is going to have to run a race with extra weights on your legs. your generation that has to swim in the pool with weight around

your torso and is going to be difficult. but i have supreme confidence that you are up to it and i would encourage you to remind yourself that what you are looking for is the finish line and the prize that is going to move you to ultimate victory. so my question to you is tonight, that if our generation has saddled you with jack, if we have allowed a culture of dependency to be taken hold of in our society, are you -- are you this generation, going to tolerate those kinds of beliefs and our country? are you going to embrace them and allow them to fight? i hope not because ultimately that is the fate that is going to be determined. you see, it was thomas jefferson who reminded us that we are a government of what? helfgott earned.

in self-government, strippers and size we are the guardian of our own liberty. you see, if you are looking for members of congress however noble, however committed they are to freedom, if you're looking to chorus, she judges, however they are committed to these ideas, if you're looking to the president or the bureaucrats to preserve your freedom, you are going to be disappointed because it's very, very difficult for freedom to thrive in the corridors of power. it's going to be up to you. it's up to you to communicate ideas and push those ideas and encourage those ideas in a way that is appealing and clear and true to the people of your generation. nec, thomas jefferson made this point of the importance of ideas. he made the point that the reason the american revolution, the american experiment, the american constitution was so

unique was because it was predicated on these ideas, not on material things. and he made the point in a letter to his friend that ideas are superior to material things because if you have a big and you share with a friend and give it with a friend, you no longer have that thing. but if you wrote to a friend, if you have an idea, prince opposing values than you do share this with your friends, no one will possess a less forgiving. another was coming share values and principles and ideas with friends. they can embrace them with you and you are giving up none of them. and as he put in that letter, he who likes this taper at mine perceives light without darkening mine. the point being that if you share these ideas with a friend, it is going to light up their lives as well and it will not take anything from you. so my question to you is, are you going to carry that torch?

are you going to be the generation committed to doing that? are you going to take what you learn here this week in which you learn when you read and study and listen to speeches and people and news cable channels talking about these great issues? are you going to take these issues and carry the torch to ensure that they survive to a next-generation? because i will contend to you that if you follow the course of my generation and you compromise on these issues and are willing to give up liberty for some commentaries, ultimately the american torch will be passed and america will end up on the ash heap of history. it is up to you and i challenge you to do this in a thank you very, very much for listening. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. [applause]

now i understand we have an incredibly thoughtful and lively group and i would love to take any questions or comments or thoughts that people might have feared it could be in my talk, issues, something that you think has been overlooked. but any thoughts you might have on the challenges we face are things you have learned or, you know issues that have come out that there might be disagreement on. yes come over here. >> ben smith -- [inaudible] i was just wondering if the lobbyists off your book was so -- the book he wrote, i was wondering what kind of affect is going to have been training. >> that's a great question. >> the act is act. basically what happened as i read about this showed members of congress and staff members were incredibly good at picking the right stock at the right time. there was an academic study done that showed that the average united states senator was far

better -- getting far better stock returns and most hedge funds. and the question was, is it because these guys are so incredibly brilliant, which i really doubt, or is this something else. what you find us during the 2009 health health care debate on a sonicare, people on both sides of the issue who are putting the bill together, amending it, determining what would come out of committee were aggressively treating health care stocks at the same time as you could imagine they did very well. so the book came out. 60 minutes did an episode on it. i think they did a great job. if you want to see a deer in the headlights moment with nancy pelosi, this is the place to go. they did a very good job. this is a problem that really honestly is a problem with both political parties, what i call the affirmative political class in washington. i am a conservative more than i am a republican democrat or anything else.

the bill that passed was the stock act and it made it a crime, a felony for members of congress to engage in insider trading. it also requires now that every 30 days to disclose their finances and stock trade, rather than just once a year. i'm kind of skeptical as to whether the law will deliver. i don't think the securities and exchange commission will go after members of congress, but this is a great opportunity for empowerment because the fact that they now have to disclose stock trades, we're going to know if they are debating health care reform, whether it aer buying and selling health care stocks. that is where you come in. i mean, we need to hold them accountable. the media is not going to do it. it's got to be the citizens. that's the law, that's the bill. it's a small step forward, but a lot more that needs to be done. >> thank you. [applause] >> gabbro moran jell-o from oregon state university. he spoke a lot in our generation

in choices will have to make in the future on our country. with all the liberal influence on our college campuses and among the media, one of the generation has brainwashed and it seems as though conservatives have stood by and asked about much. my question for you is what consumers like myself in or at this conference do to prevent such influence on college campuses where we most often are the minority? >> well, that's a great question. i don't think there's much you can do to limit the influence. you can let people know that it's there. the whole problem with speech codes and the fact that there is an intolerance left, i have a very different view than some people have. i don't do that is strength. i view that as weakness. there is a reason that on some college campuses they don't want to have an honest debate. and it's not because they would win. they don't want to have an honest debate because they know they probably wouldn't win.

so i see it as a sign of weakness, not strength. this has been sort of a problem for american history and in the 1950s and 1960s, particularly as barry goldwater was running for president, there were articles in major newspapers saying that conservatives some was actually a mental illness, that the only coherent, healthy, psychological view was liberalism. >> one of my political science professors made me read a book called the republican brain. >> that's exactly right. >> they do other studies to show the classic one is they took kids in nursery school at berkeley, of all places, and they went and talked to students 20 years later and the professor who was far politically to the left gives an assessment and analysis and what he determined with all the kids in nursery school 20 years later, the ones whining in nursery school all grew up to be conservatives.

and all the cells suggested ensuring young kids ended up to be liberals. i mean, it's just kind of ridiculous. i wrote a book a couple years ago called makers and takers, or what i tried to show us you can look at the data and come to far different data. there is an amazing number of studies that show, for example, that conservatives have their children with liberal parents do. my point was not to say that one parent is better than the other. my point was saying this kind of ridiculousness is indicative of the fact that a lot of people on the left on campus don't really want to discuss the issues. they would rather assault and peeled the character people because that way they don't have to deal with it. it's a one-way thing you need you need to keep fighting. it is not new and that doesn't mean it's easier, but honestly, it is a sign of weakness and the fact that they dismiss you and

won't engage in discussing and won't allow you to introduce ideas or have you read both sides of this kind of week s. it's not a sign of strength. and also, that they realized there were lots of students in your class that are sitting silent because there may be intimidated by the professor. but they agree with you, they may just not say that in the class. but there is a senate majority out there. >> thank you. >> hello, my name is courtney and i come from nashville, tennessee. as with you, i'm a really big fan of the olympics and i've been trying to keep up with them this week. a replay came out earlier this week with every battle that julius u.s. athletes wednesday to pay a thousand dollars in taxes. >> that's right. >> but with every other country, the thieves get away with it how is that fair for americans and our athletes who bring our honor for these games, how is that fair for them and everyone else

doesn't have to do that? >> i think that's a good question. if you look at the olympics the way that a lot of people look at theeconomic system, their argument would be, well, michael phelps probably swimming community pools when he was growing up they were built with tax dollars. [laughter] he probably used showers that would tax dollars. you know, he obviously comes from an upper-class socioeconomic background, so we have certain benefits others did. so the fact that he's won but is it, 21 medals no? he really didn't earn all that. he had a head start, so you should actually have to pay to get his gold medal. this is the sort of rationale out there. i agree with you completely. it is not fair. this is an accomplishment. this is a success. but celebrate them. i think the vast majority of the american people do. [applause] i think the vast majority at the

american people do. a lot of times they can learn a lot about sports. think about how many people out there or football fans. college professional -- football season coming. i cannot wait. [applause] but here's the question. whatever one's politics are -- have you ever met anybody that says you know what, i want the referee to decide who wins. you know, i want the referee decide who wins and i want them to balance out the penalties on both sides. nobody would say that, but that is really a baby when it comes to economics. the referee is kind of like the regulator, kind of like the state. so i think that the olympics give us a great opportunity to ask people why they like the olympics. what is that they like and they take a certain pride and have a certain respect for athletes, the gold medal winners, bronze

medal winners, even those that didn't get a medal, but you were there because even getting there is difficult. and if they embrace them, that excellence, why can't they do the same thing to someone who hasn't ice cream shop that suddenly turns into 30 ice cream shops, employs a bunch of people and achieve financial success? i don't understand the difference. different gifts, abilities that they're both committed to excellence. the short answer is i do think it's unfair. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. schweitzer. i'm tyler hill, recent graduate from hillsdale college. many questions for you. i guess right now, what do you think about the discussion with that romney's tax returns and as one who has looked a lot into congress and deals with their making, do you think there's anything inherently consumption, or ali but i thought? >> i think it's a great question.

i think that harry reid approach is absolutely absurd. i mean, it would be like me going on television and say this senator beats his wife. now it's got to prove that's not true. it is an absurdity. but that said, i've been very clear and consistent in my view. i'm a big believer in transparent to you. mitt romney is not required by law to release those tax returns. he is not required by law to release the names of all of the campaign bundlers, but i think he ought to because my view is that his theme of crony capitalism, which is talking about on the campaign trail, which i think it's an issue that needs discussion, you know, in my view i don't care if it's the democratic party cronyism or republican party cronyism, it is wrong. [applause] and i think we need to be consistent and hold them to the

same standards. my view is that harry reid, you know, you beat your wife, prove me wrong approach is an absolute absurdity. but that said i do believe in transparency and ink we should expect our elected leaders to bring some clarity to what kind of financial entanglements they might have. if you look, for example, at the slender as government grants pass out in green energy, a lot of that went to obama's bundlers. it was important to know who are the people close to whoever is president to make sure cronyism doesn't slake whoever is in office. >> thank you for having us in thank you of america foundation. i am now a hundred could pull 10:00 a.m. from cuba, became a citizen might share. >> terrific. [cheers and applause] i recently ran to be a delicate for the republican national convention. i was told by the good old boys

that i couldn't make it and i usually talk about this everywhere i go with young people because we have to be aware what's going on within our own political system. i was told by the good old boys from florida that i could make it. i ran a fair campaign, was elected as a first politic and will be going to tampa. but at the time for the gop to step up its duty and being more open and inclusive to a new generation, president ronald reagan so eloquently promoted in the 1980s. what are we doing wrong today? is the gop is scared of young people? and what can we do? >> great question. you know, i think part of the challenge, you know, for conservatives is there's been a lot of success over the past 20 years. you know, when ronald reagan was running for president in 1976 and 1980, he did an enormous

amount of speaking for people. he did speeches this organization and he was eager to do it. you know, part of that there wasn't much of a conservative movement and washington. what with reagan's election and his success, a conservative movement really true and we now have this amazing infrastructure in washington of think tanks and advocacy organizations on everything from free-market economics to social issues. and honestly, part of it has become a little too comfortable. it's become a little too comfortable, so there is a resistance to change in some aspects of the conservative movement that wasn't their 25 years ago because 25 years ago there weren't as many institutions as there are now. so i agree with you completely. i think we as a movement have to think the same way that we need to think as americans and that is that we are ruled by

principles and not and not by man to wait to be very, very careful when we look to political leaders. we can honor them and respect them and believe in them, but realized ultimately it is not personalities that should lead us. its principles. i think the infusion of young people into the movement is fabulous in creating a new energy and new dynamic and will propel the conservative movement forward. i applaud you for what you're doing. thank you. >> hello, mr. schweitzer. he suggested earlier we were part of the greatest generation because of our soldiers in the middle east. i was wondering if you give us any suggestions on how to count ourselves among the great ones of her generation. obviously we cannot come close to risk in our lives by joining the military, but is there anything half as noble as those over there? >> i would never equate anything anyone did you hear what our soldiers are doing overseas. never would i do that.

[cheers and applause] but i think the spirit which they embrace and really honestly, it's remarkable. for those of you who it not read some of the stories about what our soldiers have done and the heroism, it's truly unbelievable. the fact they are there because they've chosen to be there is truly remarkable. what i would say is the spirit that they have, they are uncompromising when it comes to protect teen their comrades, the people with them on a mission when it comes to the commish in their mission. they are there and driven by that purpose and i would encourage you to do that here. what that means is you're going to be on campus or you may be at an office location for your conservative any of certain views and ideas. people will ridicule you or make fun of you or call you also said names. i would say respectfully and strongly, not shouting and

yelling at being angry, but stand up for your principles and i would engage in embrace other people in trade share those ideas. i would run for office, run for the school board. there's an amazing amount of things you can do as a young person, 23, 24 years old on a school board. you've been a student recently. school boards are made of people who haven't been a student for 40 years through their tie in with the labor unions and official education. so look for opportunities. to use the military term for someone young like you committed to ideals, modern america is a target rich environment. there's a lot of dings you can do. [applause] >> thank you. >> inks are coming. i just wanted to know, how much of young america's foundation when you are student influence political thought in future work? >> it was terrific. the showman right here, ron robinson turned me.

[cheers and applause] ron robinson turned me from a business administration computer science major to a political science major and some uninterested in ideas. now, my father was an engineer. when i told him i was switching my major to political plot he was horrified. he was absolutely horrified. but it completely transformed the tree of my life. i'd never thought of growing up i was going to be an author, that is going to write books and investigative journalism. it just never crossed my mind into linking to to this conference. what i realized was here is an opportunity to have a purpose in life that you are going to look back on and have tremendous satisfaction with what she's done. because yes, i would never equate what we are doing with what our soldiers are doing, the risk or anything like that, but the principle is somewhat the same. i mean, you are choosing to give

up comfort, put up with a certain amount of views on campus because you believe in something more important in yourself and your comfort. you are making the same kind of decisions that those in the american revolution did, as i pushed in the civil war and those during world war ii. again, there are fine bullets, but it's the same principle. you ought to embrace that and honor that and this is a great place to have that star. be the foundation is a tremendous resource and you're to look at the university people in there. when you are campus and feeling isolated and alone, remember these people and realized there are people out there that are with you and you are not alone. [applause] >> hi, thank thank you for a muh greater racial jankowski at the university of michigan and all said and turned for america foundation. my question is as conservatives we believe in american exceptionalism in the american dream, but more and more i talk

to young people and they believe it is a myth that the american dream doesn't exist. so how do we get people to understand we don't need big government to accomplish the american dream and the american dream is still alive. >> that's a great question and i don't say this to people you're talking to you to be. anyone who doesn't think american exceptionalism is a real and i don't care if your commander-in-chief for a college freshman, you're ignorant. i mean, there's just no other way to put it. [cheers and applause] i mean honestly, that's the question i would ask, say where else in the world is very system that is remotely like our system? when they say well, europe is like us, you know, my parents were from europe and i've spent a lot of time in europe. europe is not the united states. it is not the united states. [applause] and what they usually try to do is use the same argument and say

well, we're going to compare the gross national product of the european union with the united states. the only measuring point they want to use as the material. when you look at the opportunity and the freedom, the lack of constraint that you have in the united states to pursue a dream is very, very different for a whole host of reasons that it is europe. so i guess what i would say is i would ask them how they came to that conclusion and will probably not give you much of an answer. and if they do, i would challenge them. how much have you traveled around the world? how familiar are you with how other societies, you know, function, how they operate forms of government. in europe today, europe is a democracy imperatively to other parts of the world. but i saw a report that like 40% of the laws or rules that people have to abide by it aren't even

passed by parliament anywhere. there passed by vera katz in europe. is that representative government? it's not. if there's a will you don't bypass by bureaucrats, tough luck. you're stuck with it. that is why i encourage you to ask them to look at two things. number one, where do people vote? where they want to come? they want to come to the united states. the second thing i want to say is where our people having children quiet what does that have to do with anything? when you look at advanced societies, europe come united states and japan, the ultimate vote you have confidence and not to miss them about the future is whether you are having children or not. in europe and japan, they are aging rapidly because they have lost confidence in the future and they know the future is not right. in the united states, we still have enough births within the united states, excluding immigration to where we are

slightly more than reproducing our population. there's no other advanced societies that stands out and i would contend is because the american people of more optimism about the future than any other advanced society in the world. [applause] [inaudible] i love herman cain and that's because he's a small businessmen. what do you think of term limits for our elected officials? >> very good question. you know, when the term limits debate started 15, 20 years ago, i was actually opposed to term limits, that change may my view on that. i've changed my view on that because you know, when i first became interested in ideas, i felt like a lot of the issues that we faced in terms of mounting debt and the growth and size of government was just a function of ideas and we just needed to embrace ideas and talk to people about ideas that we

would win the debate. what i've changed my view is i think the reason government continues to grow is ultimately a cultural problem about washington d.c. there is a conservative journalist writer who's done a lot of a lot of things at the foundation over the years, stan at intuit a great line. he says the problem with washing and he sees first get here is a cesspool enough to stay for a while it becomes a hot tub. and that happens a lot, not just to people that are moderate. it happens to a lot of conservatives. so i do think there is a cultural problem in that washington can become very sadat did whatever your political pedigree is and i think the only way you're going to get a handle on breaking that culture is their term limits because we need a citizen legislature, a true citizen legislature. and by the way, when somebody tells you, you know, only the term limits, but there's this

great congressman from california or texas or whatever, we really need him, i say no. again, no one is irreplaceable. so yes, i support term limits. >> good evening. turner malcolm in the major minutes ucl a republican. as an activist for were looking for different things we can do it campuses to combat liberalism and when it's at its peaked when what they feel lost or whatever. my question for you is when you were involved, was there anything you found personally effective dose were created for unique. was there anything you found specifically effective? >> i tell you, you're so much more creative than we were. we did a lot of lectures. we did a lot of events. we did, you know, during the anniversary when the berlin wall came up, we redo a display of the berlin wall, have a couple people pretend to be east german soldiers and somebody be that the them with ketchup all over

them. [laughter] theater, i know. we did the best we could with what we had. the theater i think works inserted demonstrating in drawing attention to it. i think humor is a great tool. and i think humor that's not, you know, just sort of ridiculing humor, but just good humor that shows sorted the absurdities of some of the things going on in this country, some of the rules and regulations and policies from the threat to freedom. so i think you guys are doing a great job. we had lectures and it fires, but i would encourage you to do social media. i would encourage you to create events that are socially fun. so somebody doesn't think of a show up there's going to to be a debate about the federalists versus the anti-federalist. i don't know anything about that, so i better not go. just make it fun and make it a social function and stay true to what you believe.

>> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> hi, katie shoots from the university of florida. either that of a follow-up question. i find it really interesting that you kind of sad that material versus the spirit, especially when i hear a lot and i firmly believe that our view of freedom in economics and a strong family values are what will make us most materially prosperous. so i'm wondering when we go back to arkansas to visit stronger to say hey let's make more money, for yourselves up and make art sells more prosperous or to kind of go with more of the braveheart route, let's have freedom of the human spirit, versus, you know, sacrifice? >> that's a great question. you know, i think the reality is there are people on campus, the daring campus ultimately because they want to get a job. they are not interested in

ideas, not interested in politics. they don't care what goes on in washington d.c. are in the realm of politics and ideas. and those people are going to be hard to reach. i do believe it's your generation. and i mean this in an good way. we have economic challenges in this country, but it's not the great depression. and so, there is material abundance. what i see is a lot of young people trying to sort of figure out some thing bigger than themselves. they end up unfortunately sort of embracing some of these movements like, for example, if you look at in its extreme form, it's really a religious movement. they are just using some indifferent to worship, whether it's a tree or a whale or oso or whatever. and so, i think a lot of times young people are looking for something to believe in this bigger than themselves. i think the point we want to make about free market is that

free markets mean freedom and there is this incredible connection that history shows, that she cannot have economic control and political freedom. the two go hand-in-hand and that kind of makes sense if you think about it. i mean come if you tell people you've got political freedom, but don't give them the opportunity to have economic autonomy and their outcome you rights as quick as you want and they won't be able to sustain themselves. so way out for, in my view, you know, braveheart as he put it. i kind of like that. nobody here is in a kilt i hope, but i like the idea of appealing to idealism and embracing the idealism because when you are gone, there's a sense of idealism and you're absolutely right. the great thing about our position is idealism and commitment to freedom is not just commitment to freedom. it's also the pathway to prosperity in the two go hand-in-hand.

so thank you. [applause] >> hi, mr. schweizer. and katie melancon also a ucla student. my question for you is to route your investigation of congress, did you find the corruption rooted in the congressman was president before they were elected or do you think once they got to congress and had all these connotations if that was the true problem? >> i think that's a great question. i do not believe -- the title book of the course is, throw them all out, which implies that we wipe the slate clean and bring in new guise, everything will be fine. the reason is we need to have a zero-tolerance policy, whether it is our guy or guy on the other side of the idea with different political leaves wait to have a zero-tolerance policy and getting them all now. that said, i don't think that this is ultimately a problem that is going to be fixed by electing people with better

character. we could certainly do that. i don't think it would be hard to do that because the bar so low, but the point i would make is i think the bigger problem is the culture of washington, you know, think about this for a second. you may not know this. washington d.c. for the first time in american history is now the wealthiest city in america. they just passed silicon valley for the highest per capita income in the country. seven out of 10 wealthiest counties in america are counties that border washington d.c. and the problem is as i mentioned before, the cesspool becomes the hot sun and i just think it's too tempting to too many people. there are some very good people and you've heard from them, who have resisted this in not against it and are fighting the good fight. so i don't mean to imply everyone of them is this way. not at all. but that said, bringing in a new crop of good to me to have the

same problem. that is why we need to look at changing the culture of washington and i think a lot of people came here with good ideals and good values, but it just prove too tempting to embrace the wealth that comes with being a congressman. spirit thank you. >> you're welcome. >> if i make him i would just like to ask you about your college. i completely agree with what you said about the european union. i believe once was set upon these lines. in my lifetime all the problems that come from the europeans and solutions have come from the english speaking nations. >> here, here, that's absolutely true. [applause] >> the united kingdom still has the capacity to breathe your greatest ally. should the united states now be encouraging britain to pull out of the european union?

>> that's a good question. [cheers and applause] >> that's a great question. i was actually in graduate school in the u.k. when the whole european union debate was taking place. i've never been a fan of the european union gives you are giving up british sovereignty in a lot of respect serbian part of its union. and honestly, do you want to look at history as someone from the u.k. who is in trusting the french with your political liberties. [cheers and applause] i say that -- i do have friends in france, too, but the political culture is very different. but now, gas, i would embrace the idea in terms of an economic

union in some form, that is a question that can be discussed about economics, but the problem is when it comes to politics, you are giving up too much sovereignty. so no, in the united states i think we would do very, very well to talk to the u.k. about forging a union with the u.k. and perhaps some other countries and pulling them away from europe rather than seeing, i think, european experiment that is probably going to fail on a number of levels continue to go along. so you're welcome. [cheers and applause] >> hi, elements of isabella foxman and internet the reagan center and a high school student in alan oaks california. a question to you is what you think is the most hypocritical policy that by making users and

advantages they political issue? >> how much time do we have? >> you know, that's a great question. i read a book a few years ago called do as they say, not as they do, which is profiling liberal hypocrisy. the point of the book was, you know, we need to have ideals and set high standards and its conservative supporters to raise certain principles and ushers them times. what we fall short from conservative ideals, usually been said a keener life force. you know, those principles are like guard rails on a road, so they're good for you. if you're hypocritical, you can be hypocritical, but it's probably going to hurt you. the irony is for liberals, hypocrisy is a good thing. your life gets better if you abandon liberal ideas. the example i use is the fact that so many liberals from ted kennedy to others who favor taxing the wealthy are the most adept at putting their assets overseas, where they can avoid paying, the kinds of taxes they

want the rest of us to pay. the rest is tax policy. there's so many examples. how many people follow the chick-fil-a problem that happens. this to me was sort of a classic example of the lack of principle and this happens among some conservatives. the lack of principle that modern liberalism exists. brahma manual says, afte the head of the ceo of chick-fil-a expresses his first amendment rights by giving his view that he immediately declares that while these are not chicago values, we just don't welcome chick-fil-a here. three hours later, the city of chicago and the mayor's office is working with the nation of

islam. what is their view on gay marriage? is far less tolerant than what the head of chick-fil-a said. but he's welcome to chicago. so i guess if someone on the other side of the aisle expresses these sorts of views, then it is a history and terrible on all sorts of forms. but if our guys do it, it is okay. but i think would be an interesting question for the obama administration because the view expressed by the head of chip delays the view that barack obama expressed in 2008 and he is change. so i think you can do it on a lot of levels. i think you can do it on values, tax policy. i think you can look at the whole question of success and prosperity in america because if somebody in the silicon valley is giving large donations to his political party, he doesn't seem to have a problem with that. but if it is somebody who has

had economic success given to other parties, suddenly they are greedy and need to be taxed higher. so i would focus on the economic issues. yes, one more question. >> i was wondering if the stock act also cover a congressman from giving out or selling this insider information. >> that's a great question. no, it does not. the other thing it does not do is this is another loophole. he got to give it to people in washington have been in politics and are incredibly creative. if you're in senator congressman to want to become a latte, you have to wait. there's it. you have to wait for two years before you can register to be a lobbyist. but if you leave office, you can the next day opened what is called a political intelligence firm. what a political intelligence firm as a senator or congressman works for a hedge fund or for investors and he finds out what

bills will pass and which won't pass by talking to his former colleagues. and then he sells -- excuse me, that information to investors and they don't have to wait two years to do that. so there are all sorts of loopholes and ways around this. i think breaking the back of the ability of current people in washington to get rich off of big government and to get rich off of inside jokes and inside information is a critical issue. because if you break that back bone, there is no longer a financial motive or incentives for people to advocate for big governments. you know, the bottom line is that if you're a congressman and looking out for the economic prosperity of your kids and your family, there is absolutely no way to profit personally from limiting governments. the way do you profit is by expanding government because that's going to give you all kinds of access. so thank you very much. you've been a great audience. thank you for listening.

[applause] >> thank you a match, peter. what an inspiration to wrap up the conference, to know that former students can give our farewell address in so many great speakers this week is a great testament to your career in the work achieved on them we appreciate it. [applause] on behalf of the foundation, i want to thank all the speakers with us. we've been blessed to have an absolutely tremendous lineup. i am most appreciative and it continues in the tradition of ronald reagan set for this organization a number of years ago. i am not naïve to think it was that reagan's association and a

lot of the items we have done since then has blessed us with so many great speakers. this year you heard from two or three recent presidential candidates, two united states senators, four members of the united states house of representatives. you heard from some of the best professors in the country and i appreciate the speakers. no greater thanks goes to my two colleagues in the board of directors too wrapped up the conference this afternoon. kirby wilbur and peter schweizer. we have a great board at the young america's foundation i'm glad you had an opportunity to hear from two of those board members here this afternoon and this evening. but i want to thank you also a students for being with us this week. i think pat probably said monday night something that i've said many times before. you shouldn't have to come to washington in the middle of the summer, give up a week of work if you're fortunate enough to be a gun man or woman with a job in the obama years, to give up a

week of work to come to washington and be here, to hear conservative ideas. in a way, your teachers have already failed you and your colleges and high schools and other schools are a failure because these ideas we express today are the mainstream ideas of america, the ideas that fueled the reagan administration and reagan revolution and that newt gingrich continued in 1994 with his victory in the house of representatives and the reforms that he had a nephew that in many cases in the 1990s. and there are the ideas that have led to much of the change, landscape in this country in the last two years, continued on this week, which took ted cruz to treat in texas. [cheers and applause] these are ideas that should already be available in your

classrooms. you should not come to washington. you should not to bring in a guest speaker to do it. i think in some respects we become stronger in so doing, but nevertheless, it is an indication and a failure as peter pointed out of the last been willing to defend their ideas in the face of conservative ideas and is also a testimonial i named to your desire to make our country better to make yourself better as you join us this week. i think each and every student they came and participated. i particularly thank those that have come across the pond. i know you have a lot of great ideas in europe as well, not just the u.k. and they are not always adopted by your governments, but they are there and many of the freedom ideas we have in the united states have the boots themselves in the great anchors of the western world, western

civilization. we appreciate you making the effort to come across the pond and hope that you will continue to send your colleagues in doing so in the years ahead, certainly you are always welcome at a young america's foundation event and we appreciate your being with us as well. [applause] finally, i want to thank my colleagues that worked so hard on this, particularly since one of the things for the foundation i know they put a lot of thing, the ones who invited the speakers, good for halls together, the meals together, the package together all summer long. if you are a great team. i appreciate the opportunity and work with those colleagues i have at the national journalism center in the reagan ranch center and i had orders in northern virginia. greater thanks to anyone should go to anyone other than her

conference director in her second year as running this conference. but greatly appreciate the person who i'm going to give the final word for the conference from, katie terrance. kb, would you come up? [cheers and applause] [applause] >> thank you, guys. [cheers and applause] thank you, guys, so much. i am so blessed to work at young america's foundation and has such an amazing team that i would like you to give my team members an amazing round of

applause that you gave me because i wouldn't be here without them. [applause] i have a few kind of closing announcement for housekeeping, but then just some closing thoughts. the housekeeping staff first. tomorrow morning is check out. i know, i know. you have to be checked out by 11:00 a.m. there will be someone in the lobby and thurston hall as early as 7:00 a.m. if you need to be leaving earlier than not, please contact me. we will arrange. probably not keen on one of the staff member's stories to give them their key and evaluation. please don't forget to complete

your evaluation forms. we really used as to kind of plan future conferences. if you drove here in part to use a parking garage of the academic center parking garage and you let us know that you were going to be driving and needed parking validation, please consider me afterwards so i can give you a sticker. one girl lost her key, so if anybody has found a key here in the grand ballroom, please bring that to me so i can get that to her. or if anyone heard of a lost key or would have clues to where that would be. sorry, satellite blues clues are some pain. also, aaron shumaker, i need to see rachel jankowski. i'm not exactly sure what that is for. i was just told to give you that message. [laughter] okay, without much further ado, what a week, how?

[cheers and [applause] >> what i tried to do is take a look at this on the larger perspective and go back and see, how did we get to where we are today? over the main causes? are there any trends and themes that run through our relationship? and with the ultimate goal of trying to rate as an active account of what has transpired on both sides. ..

give us a moment to kneel and pray. the major said -- >> across that bridge author and congressman john lewis sunday at 8:00 on c-span q&a. >> defense secretary leon panetta told reporters about a plan that the u.s. hopes will eventually allow the marines to flight osprey aircraft in japan.

residents have been protesting the move because of safety concerns. joined at the pentagon briefing by the japanese defense minister. this is 25 minutes. [silence]

>> we will answer the ability of our forces to operate together. it will ensure our dominance of the skies for decades to come. minister and i talked about other areas that are right for greater alliance corporation. including intermission security and ballistic missile defense. the minister and i also discussed the revised realignment plan outlined in the

april 20122 plus 2 statement. this was a major accomplishments for our alliance. both of our nation's agree on the need to rapidly implement the terms of this agreement so that we can move forward in realigning force structure in the asia-pacific region. a key part of that force posture is the deployment of marine corps hymn v-22 osprey to okinawa. the osprey is a critical aircraft when it is flying operations around the world. on the front lines in afghanistan as well as around communities here in the net states. the osprey is important to the defense of japan. it will enable marines to fly

faster and farther from okinawa to remote islands in japan. and with the ability to refuel in flight, it can stay aloft much longer. this is a one-of-a-kind platform it provides the speed, range, and payload needed to cover the vast distances in the western pacific, and it will enable us to reform humanitarian assistance, disaster relief operations, and fulfill our other roles that are critical to the u.s., japan alliance. i have flown the osprey number of times both in afghanistan as well as in the united states. in san diego i flew over southern california communities out to an amphibious ship in flew from washington d.c. to new york and back. today the minister will have the opportunity to see firsthand the

impressive capabilities of this aircraft. as close allies we will always respect, always respect the concerns and the circumstances on both sides and work together to develop practical solutions that will allow this vital relationship to continue to move forward in the face of challenges. when the government of japan came to us and expressed safety concerns about the mv-22 deployment we immediately responded in a deep fault call respectful and collaborative manner. our hope is to work out a joint wait for word in the matter -- in a manner that is befitting this great alliance. on the technical issue of shipping the aircraft, both sides agreed to deliver the osprey to japan on time, but in

recognition of the remaining concerns of the japanese government about the safety of the aircraft. we will refrain from any flight operations of the mv-22 in the short term. our agreement is that the ins -- results of the investigation into recent mishaps will be presented to the japanese government, and the safety of flight operations will hopefully be reconfirmed. the defense department anticipates presenting this information to the japanese government sometime this month. the collaborative manner in which we are working through the issues demonstrates the strength of this alliance. the importance that we place in our relationship with japan is in many ways one of the keys to our expanding presence in the pacific. and it is also a reflection of how much we value the trust of

japan and the japanese people. we have made it very clear in our new defense strategy that we are rebalancing to the asia-pacific region. one of the important keys to our ability to rebalance is the united states-japan relationship. it is in that spirit that i look forward to a long and productive relationships with minister morimoto, one that reflects the strong bonds of and the shared values that link our country together. my goal is to further strengthen the -- one of the strongest alliances we have in the pacific. thank you. [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: i would like to say of you of the things and then i will try to avoid repeating what secretary panetta said. we talked about the security issues in the meeting. the u.s.-japan alliance, we confirmed the u.s.-japan alliance continues to be very important, not just -- but in the region as a whole. in order to me to the changes of

the security environment, in order to maintain the stability we are going to talk about making progress in discussions between japan and the united states and study the roles to be played by japan and the united states in the area of defense cooperation. with regard to the difference -- the guidelines which has been in existence for more than ten years, so in order to us meet the current environment we are going to start discussion on

reviewing this existing guidelines. so i agreed to the idea of reviewing defense guidelines. next, japan is moving forward with defense corporations. we are promoting it and the secretary panetta mentioned. as a result of agreement made and the agreement made at the heads of state meeting. we agree to accelerate the work

on this area. in this regard the establishment of training and during this exercise and shared use of the facilities that were discussed and also the -- we talked about the cooperation between japan and the united states with regard to you ave and also we are going to look into the strengthening joint isr between japan and the united states. under the current security environment, the included items,

as 35 affirmation security and maritime securities and hagr. so we agreed to put the areas between japan and the estates. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: well, we are currently moving forward with realignment. in this regard we tell currently

-- we have talked about the issues related to the replacement of facility issues and the transfer to glom. we agreed to continue to make efforts on both sides to realize what was agreed in april during 2 plus 2. with regard to that osprey, the role played by osprey and what it means to japan, i think already dimensions. so, from my side with regard to deployment of osprey in okinawa, the analysis group will get the briefing from that team in the united states which is in rolled

in the investigation . the united states will give us the report with the investigation with regard to what happened in florida and morocco as soon as possible to japan. and until we confirm the safety of it, the united states will refrain from deploying osprey. moreover, either the osprey is operated in japan, the relevant issues would be discussed in the japanese and u.s. joint meetings. we are actively giving the

utmost consideration to ensure the safety. we covered most of the issues, the oversight. the term, the issues between japan and the united states. we had a very productive meeting . i had about -- i had some conversations with secretary panetta and actually met in

person. i think that we are able to build the relationship based on trust. so i believe the meeting was very timely and a very substantial discussion. i think we are able to, as i discussed, a lot of important issues. the very important, the direction for the future, the relationship. >> just for clarification, will the u.s. not fly the osprey in japan until they get some sort of approval from the japanese government and then my question is, come back from a long series of meetings overseas including

meetings with officials during which time they expressed some rather a vehement concerns about the ongoing sanctions, they do not believe they are working. i'm wondering if you can say whether or not you get any assurances from them in private that there will be either a time or no imminent attack and whether their comments in public or more public posturing verses what you understood from them and private. >> okay. first of all, with regard to the osprey, the agreement is that we have the planes there and that we will not fly them and sell we have been presented their report our hope is that we then would be able to get the approval of japan to conduct for flight

operations. we will be working closely in order to ensure that we are together in terms of when those operations began. on the second issue having just returned from the chip to the middle east, i had the opportunity to visit a number of countries there. obviously a lot of forces at play in that region. there are at the same time, number of upper to entities that can move us in the right direction. what i saw in tunisia, what i saw happening in egypt tells me that these are countries that are trying to move forward with democratic reforms. in israel i had the opportunity to have a number of discussions there. the purpose of our discussions was, in large measure, to discuss a number of issues that

are happening in the region, including syria and other issues related to the sinai and also to discuss the concerns about a run. bottom-line, we have common cause with regard to a run. our positions are similar. we will not allow tehran to develop a nuclear weapon. and we are working with the international community to implement that position. doing it through sanctions, doing it obviously through the efforts to achieve some kind of diplomatic resolution. but we also made very clear that, you know, should those efforts fail and should iran make the decision to proceed, we have all options on the table, including military options.

but our position is that military options ought to be the last resort, not the first resort, and we have made that clear. i think the results of the conversations, we understand each other better. we're going to continue to have lines of communication between our two countries with regard to this issue and that we have a strong alliance with the country of israel and will continue his communications in our relations with them as we confront the common thread coming from a rock -- iraq. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i am going to ask secretary panetta, a lot of concerns raised in japan with regard to the deployment of osprey.

what kind of consideration you're going to be providing in order to address those concerns. if you could be very specific device specific would very much appreciated. >> we are aware of the concerns that have been raised by japan with regard to the issues including the osprey. at the same time we have tremendous confidence. we fly this plane in combat operations. we fly around the world. the flight here in this country. and we are tremendously confidence that this plane can safely implement its operational mission. what we need to do is to make that case to japan. the specific approach will be to provide a full report on the investigation regarding the safety of the osprey and the

incidents that took place recently so that hopefully we can assure japan that this is as safe -- i safe plane to use and that ultimately we will have the opportunity to deal to put that into operation with japan. [inaudible question] >> the united states, i mean, freedom of the organization. china, the policy, navigation. >> one of the things that the minister and i agreed in our discussions is that as we

strengthen our presence in the pacific that it is important for all of the countries in that region to be concerned about issues like navigational rights, maritime security, issues related to us humanitarian aid, disasters, issues related to trying to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, issues related to up piracy in that region as well. these are all common cause issues. for that reason we think it really makes sense for the countries of that region to come together to be able to advance our common security and our common strategies toward dealing with these challenges, specifically with regard to this piece that have arisen with the

south china sea. very pleased that a code of contact that -- code of conduct has been developed. we have to do more to put that in place and enforce it. it is clear that we have to deal with these disputes in a peaceful way and resolve these issues peacefully. the last thing that we want is to have direct confrontation in the south china sea with regard to jurisdiction of issues. those should be resolved peacefully, and they should be resolved pursuant to a code of conduct. the united states will do whatever we can to work with japan and others to ensure that is the approach we take in dealing with those kinds of issues. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: question,

transferred the two in october in order to meet. i think that you are. if the report would be delayed, would there be any possibility of the transfer being delayed as well? >> we don't anticipate a delay in the report, but i want to assure you, as i have assured the minister. on this issue we are going to work closely together. i think we both have the same goal in mind. we have -- we have our presence there. the marines have a presence there. they need a lift capability in order to be effective in that region had to do the operations that there are responsible for. we are going to do everything

that we can to work closely with japan in the effort to provide those a v-22 so that they are operational, but we will do it in a way that obviously get the support and the confirmation of the government of japan. >> coming up on c-span2, highlights from today's meeting of the america's foundation. first robert george and immigration. the u.s.-china relationship, and we will hear from washington state republican party chairman. >> on tomorrow's washington journal a look at the youth vote in november with president of generation opportunity. we will analyze the latest unemployment figures with

bloomberg news reporter and a director of the army national guard. washington journal begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span. >> we did not begin as a city. there was only a native american region and later a county in another state, kentucky. we began in 1778 as. [inaudible] >> this weekend to join book tv american history tv, and the c-span local content vehicles from louisville, kentucky. literary life on c-span2. biographer john david done on senior senator mcconnell and removing american politics, the internet revolution. sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv three weeks of farming and plantation in 1941 would be key in shaping it

ramekins years on slavery. also, the heyday of the steamboat. once a month the local content vehicles explore the history and literary life of cities across america this weekend from louisville. [applause] >> all right. welcome to the final after the end of the national conservative student conference.

for those, for the audience watching on c-span and going to is when a little bit about the iraq foundation. it is committed to ensuring that increasing numbers of young americans know and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, free enterprise, traditional values, and a strong national defense. we accomplish this through essential conferences and seminars like this one, a number of campus activism initiatives, a speaker circuit of over 70 conservative speakers that college and high-school students can bring to their campuses and a number of other items, including activism, materials, the reagan ranch in california, our national journalism center which trains. and also young americans for freedom and students across the country.

i am really excited to introduce our next speaker because i think she is the epitome of so many of these ideas that we are talking about this week. professor robert george, princeton celebrated chair in jurisprudence and is a founding director of the james madison program and the founder of the american principles program. previously served on the president's council on bioethics and as a presidential appointee to the as its commission on civil rights. the author of in defense of national law, making civil liberties and that class of with the boxes, law, religion, and morality. cal author of a defense of human life. his scholarly articles and reviews have appeared in the harvard law review, the yale law journal, columbia law review, and the american journal of

jurisprudence. he is the recipient of many awards including the presidential citizens medal, the battle for the defense of human rights, they can't rare metal as a becket fund for religious liberty, the sydney hope morial of the national association of scholars, and many other words. the most admirable quality of dr. george is see is a man of faith, a staunch defender of the unborn, and as america's most influential conservative christian thinker. please give a warm welcome. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. well, thank you so much for that introduction. it's wonderful to be back at the annual student conference.

i want to thank the administration for inviting me back. i especially enjoyed that nice lunch that i have been eating the last six days at chick-fil-a . it's a little different. governor what walker terrific? now, there is a man who refuses to be intimidated. a lesson. when he talked about a role model, that is not just for you guys. it is all of us. governor walker did what he thought was right. he did not just lift a finger and put it in the air and sewage where the wind was blowing. he stood up for what he believed his faith needed. he would have been a right even

if he had not survived. there is something really edifying in the fact that he did he did the right thing, and it turned out to be the right thing, not only the politically right thing, but the right thing for his state. too often in the past, even good politics, even good leaders, even good people have allowed themselves to be intimidated. reversing for setting in the wrong direction. he did not do that. [applause] now, the governor mentioned the very important course of this. one that you have heard about. at night in the dorms. that is the concept of american exceptions. now, copper don't have much use

for that. michael kinsley, for example regards it as a kind of arrogance on the part of americans, supposing that there is something special about the united states of america. that is, at best, parochial, maybe even dangerously. [inaudible] president obama famously said that while he did believe in american exceptional doesn't, he believed in it the way greeks believed in greek exceptional as an and the british believe and british exceptional as and and so forth. but it seems to me that the proposition that the united states of america is an exceptional nation, it's a proposition whose truth is too obvious, even to debate. our nation was, as our greatest

president said, conceived in liberty and dedicated to that proposition that all men are created equal. not only was our nation so conceived and dedicated, we have, as a nation, proven to the world that our nation can, indeed, belong. we have endured now for more than a couple of centuries. the history of our nation is the ory of we, the people, the american people, struggling, sometimes against each other to protect and honor and to live up to the exceptional principles around which we have integrated ourselves and constitute ourselves as a people. and while our record is far from unblemished, from the very beginning we were unfaithful,

even to our own principles. slavery was the greater original sin in this nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. so while our record is not unblemished, we have not been unblessed by success. we struggled against the evils of racial injustice, segregation . we fought a terrible war that cost as three-quarters of a million lives on one side, ultimately, to end slavery. and the great principle of the equal dignity of each and every member that was articulated in the declaration of independence, jefferson who wrote those storing words, we hold these

truths to be self evident, endowed by their creator. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. jefferson himself. and yet he knew it was incompatible with that only the spirit, but the letter of the declaration of which he was principal author. and so jefferson famously said speaking of slavery that i tremble for my country when i consider that god is just and that is justice will not sleep forever he understood we are nation under god which means the nation and the judgment. a nation called to account for its deviations beginning with that principle of the

declaration equal for every member of the human family. age, size, stage of development or condition of dependency which is why our struggle in defense of the unborn child is a struggle that is entirely in the spirit of this exceptional nation and our exceptional principles. again, trying to make good for all this great promise of equality that makes the ed states of america the nation this. no one needs me to remind them that part of what is unique about this country is that our common bonds are not in blood or ethnicity but rather a shared

moral political. we do, indeed, hold these truths to be self-evident. they are endowed by their creator the kings or princes and presidents not that they can be taken away by any merely human power. the obligation of government, the very next sentence that the declaration says. secure their god-given natural and human rights. it is the belief that there are such things, the belief that

there are fundamental principles of human rights and dignity that transcend positive laws, that transcends human authorities. that is the belief that unites us as americans. it is not a common ethnicity. we are many different ethnicities. not even a common religion. different religions, always has been. multi religious society. mostly protestants, but different sects of protestants, catholics, a few jews. now we are even more riches to the verse. yet what binds us together, even across the lines of the logical divisions is their shared commitment of americans, be they protestants, catholics, eastern

orthodox, latter-day saints, jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus , no matter where they came from, what binds us together is the belief in that exceptional idea that we are a republic which honors the principle that all men are created equal. this is clear is, i think, and the fact that people really can, and the richest, fullest, and most robust sense become americans. think about that. they may be began as lithuanians nigerians, italians, and denise, they have become americans. now, of course, one can become a

citizen of, say, greece or france or china. but can one really become a greek? a frenchman? chinese? an immigrant to becomes a citizen of the united states becomes or at least can become not merely an american citizen, somebody who has been to the ceremony, but can become an american, someone who is recognized as an american by his fellow americans. a full and robust sense, he is as american as a guy whose ancestors came over on the mayflower. the question is, to me, the interesting question is how does that happen? it is really exceptional, but how does it happen?

how do emigrants become americans? well, in practice, as i say, it goes beyond becoming an american citizen and formally signing on to the american creed. the additional ingredients, i believe, and i want to suggest to you today for your consideration, is something that i, myself, know intimately from my own experience. that ingredient is credited to my gratitude. it is typically and evergreens feelings of gratitude to america for the liberty, security, and opportunity our nation afford cement his family that leads to his appreciation of american ideals of institutions, be a our economic institutions, cultural institutions, the institutions of our civic life from this appreciation of the

goodness of the institutions and the principles, is his belief in their goodness, the virtue of american ideals of all the ideas articulated in our declaration of independence and in our constitution. and from this belief, i believe, rises the emigrants aspirations to become an american citizen together with his willingness to shoulder the responsibilities of citizenship and even to make great sacrifices for the nation if it should come to that. my own immigrant grandfather came to the united states a little over 100 years ago. like most of iran's then and now there were not drawn here by any abstract relief in the superiority.

the ethnic and religious minority groups. trouble then under the ottoman rule as it is now. the party of southern italy. the -- my maternal grand father settled in west virginia where i grew up and where there was a small immigrant community of italians living in the three little towns, cities among in the river, clarksburg, fairmont, and morgantown right up near the pennsylvania border. the coal would be mined near there. they loaded into the barges on the river and ship it up to pittsburg, in those days to make this deal and then that we go to

detroit to make cars. now, my grandfather was able to save enough money to start a little grocery store, and that soon became a flourishing business. by contrast, my father's dad, my paternal grandfather spent his entire career as a labor, mostly in the mines and on the railroads. he died of emphysema, no doubt as the result of the pulmonary health hazards of coal mining in those days. now, both of these men, and i did know both of my grandfather's, were exceedingly, exceedingly grateful for what american made possible for them and there families. neither spoke english very well, but, boy, were they ever proud to be americans. they were proud of this country. they believe in it.

boy, were they ever grateful for it. their gratitude was not diminished when times get hard, as they did for all americans in the great depression. although both my grandfather is encountered ethnic prejudice, they viewed that as an aberration, a failure of some americans to live up to the nation's ideals. it did not on on them, it would not have done to, i knew them, it would not have crossed their minds to blame the bad behavior of some americans on america itself, on the contrary america in their eyes was a land of unsurpassed blessing. it was a nation of which they were proud to become citizens. and even before they became citizens they had become patriots. men who deeply appreciated what

america is and what she stood for. like so many other immigrants, arrogant grand parents particularly appreciated the opportunities that america made available to their children. my father's father had a sister. she, too, was an immigrant. we knew her. she had a sun whose name was john solomon. my dad's first cousin. cousin john wanted to be a lawyer. well, he was an unusual in an immigrant family in those days, at least where i was are my people grew up. it was unusual even to finish college, but he finished college and went on to complete law school at west virginia university. law school in those days was located on what is known as university avenue in the center of the campus. it was a grand building that one entered while walking up this magnificence, broad set of stairs. when my cousins mother came to

attend her son's graduation she stops to kiss, to bend down and kiss every step on that stairway such was her gratitude. of course, hircine was thoroughly embarrassed by this display. this was before i was born, but my dad tells the story. he was there. my father says that his cousin, john, turned his mother and of the fourth stab and pleaded with there, please, mom, you're acting like an immigrant. indeed, she was. indeed, she was. such was her gratitude for the opportunity that her son at, and opportunity that would not have been possible for her, except for hurt emigrating to the net states. a possibility that she never dreamed of and her family.

now, i talked a moment ago about how gratitude for liberty, security, and opporunity leads immigrants to an appreciation of american ideals and institutions and, in turn, gives rise to an aspiration to american citizenship and a willingness to bear its responsibilities and even make great sacrifices. four of my paternal grandparents five sons were drafted into the u.s. military to serve in the second world war. my maternal grandparents and only son was also drafted. all of these men serve in combat and returned with decorations. just about a year ago i had the pleasure of being here in washington d.c. to see my own father inducted into the legion of honor of france for his contributions to the liberation of france during the campaign in 1945.

they're arrogant parents were immensely proud of them, proud of them, precisely because they fought for america and for what america stands for. it really mattered to them. it was not just that they went into an army or the army, as they might have done in the old country. they might have done during -- under ottoman rule. it mattered to them that there were fighting for a great country, a country they believe then, a country's principles that believe in, a country they were grateful for. america. they considered that their sons really were fighting for their country, not somebody else's country, not a country in which they were visitors or guests, their country. they were fighting for a country that was not only great, but could come a country whose ideals, a country to him there

were immensely grateful, and not merely because it provided a haven from poverty and oppression, though it did do that, a country whose principals they began. that is what essentially mattered to them. when their boards were fighting in the it was entirely possible, all too possible that ultimately they would be called upon to give will lincoln at gettysburg described as the last full measure of devotion. everybody knew. mothers who have lost sons in the war. every mother knew that she had a son in combat that she could get the bad news. you can imagine the eggs ideas would cause an italian family held covered much sleep was lost

as a result of fear and dread their remains proud that their sons were fighting for this country, for their country, for america. more to the fact that italy under fascist rule was on the other side of the conflict in world war ii give them so much as a moment's pause. they knew which side they're wrong. they knew which country was now their country. a graduate leading to appreciation, leading to the conviction and commitment of the heart of true american patroness of -- pictures isn't simply left them no doubt as to their loyalty. now, i have this sense that my uncle's service to the nation was not only an expression of their americanism, the americanism of their arrogant parents. was also a profound confirmation and ratification of it.

i think the war had that effect. if they had any doubt in their own minds about whether there were truly and fully americans even though there were immigrants, as americans, those citizens, ancestors really had arrived here on the mayflower, military service erased those concerns are doubts. i daresay that the same was true, as has always been true, just in case any native-born citizens had any doubts about whether their immigrant neighbors really were americans. the willingness of immigrants and their children to take their risks and in many, many cases to be counted among the fallen leaves the question of allegiance and the american identity and no doubts. that is true today many theaters now, of course, some protestant americans wondered whether non

protestants, and especially catholics could truly become americans. they were concerned that the hierarch non demographic forms of church governance, the catholic church, would hinder the ability of nonpros than the rest to appreciate and fully give their allegiance to democratic institutions and principles and civic life. some even believe that catholic immigrants would have to be the italicized by the public school system and other mechanisms in order to become patriotic americans. well, the national, predictable, and understandable public reaction to that was the establishment of catholic parochial schools across the country. i mean, at public schools are going to be used to dig italicize immigrant kids what you think of the emigrants children and leaders. a going to create an alternative which of course would then only heightened the suspicion of some

of their protestant neighbors. what made these worries go away was the record of service and heroism, catholic and jewish and eastern orthodox and other non protestant soldiers, including countless products of parochial schools, by the way, fighting for democracy and against authoritarian regimes and totalitarian ideologies in the first and then especially in the second world war. no contradiction between their faith and their allegiance to the united states of america. on the contrary, religious commitment stands to support patriotic conviction. faithful catholics wanted to be, and not nearly to it be seen to be, they really wanted to be the very best of good american citizens. as they saw it, see it, that does not require the slightest dilution of their catholic faith

i have been talking about how gratitude launches errands on the path to becoming americans. it has, of course, happened to millions and millions of people in this country. callus permutations of the story, but there are permutations of the same story. i suspect that as you hear me tell the story of my grandparents year-to-date many of you are thinking of stories not at all dissimilar of your grandparents or great-grandparents', perhaps cases, stories of your own parents if you're the children of immigrants. the amazing and wonderful thing is that a family story like mine of immigrant ancestors truly becoming americans, sharing in the blessings of american life and taking upon themselves their share of the nation's burden is not an exception.

it is the norm. my story is your story with the exception of african americans, of course, which is a different, sad, tragic story involving injustice and slavery, the story is the common story of americans , again, whether from poland originally all lithuanians or china or vietnam or nigeria, no matter where they're from, protestant, catholic, jewish, muslim. it's the same story. and even in the case, the traffic case of slavery, that story of injustice, even their our national story includes the great and heroic efforts by blacks and whites to write to the wrongs of racial injustice and to live up to our nation's

ideals articulated at the very founding of the declaration of liberty and justice for all. we should never washout the stains on our history, but we should never permit that history to be depicted as if it is all -- as if we erase the history of the note to the noble, heroic, self sacrificial efforts to live up to our high and exceptional ideals. now, immigration is an issue in our politics today as it has been historically. ..

>> there is no need for that at all. on the contrary. those customs and traditions and ethnic and religious identities are good things. they are good for families. what is good for families is good for america. it is good for them to honor their ethnic customs and identities and pass them along to the next generation. immigrants have always done that and that is fine and good. it is a source of the

untranslated. if that is what you mean by multiculturalism, amen. nobody should think that you have to somehow eliminate your cultural background or customs or the food you eat in order to be accepted as an american. that is not the american idea. of course, we have to distinguish this from an ideology that promotes the production of a primary and central political allegiance to the united states of america and its ideals and institutions. it is certainly to be distinguished from any ideology that denies the fund fundamental goodness of america's principles of political and civil liberties. it is those principles that are the glue binding us together. we are not bound together by soil or blood or ethnicity. if we are going to be bound together, it is in those sheered exceptional principles. it is an exceptional thing about our nation that we are bound

together by a shared political moral creed that is essential. any form of multiculturalism that denies or tends to undermine or wrote back, is to my mind to be completely rejected we're a culture of opportunity forces, immigrants will feel, as your grandparents and my grandparents felt, gratitude for the opportunities they were afforded to lift themselves up and to make a better life for their children by hard work and determination to succeed. however, it appears to be a brute fact of human psychology, governor walker alluded to this. but we're a culture of entitlement prevails, as opposed to a culture of opportunity, where a culture of entitlement prevails, gratitude, even for charitable assistance will not emerge. if you undermine gratitude from

this system will fail. that gratitude, which enables immigrants to become americans, will only flourish in a culture of opportunity. it will be slandered and a culture of entitlement. this is to be explained by the fact that upward social mobility is always dampened and circumstances of a culture of entitlement. if you want to lift people out of poverty, create a culture of opportunity and not entitlement. for what it's worth, and i am not a pundit, but the future politically, it seems to me, given all the facts that are now public knowledge and we are reminded of by governor walker. future going to a party that makes itself the party of opportunity, not to the party that makes the self the party of

entitlement. the republicans will do the right thing if their policies make them a party of opportunity, and the democrats will be doing exactly the wrong thing if they give into the temptation for purposes of short-term political gain to make themselves into essentially a party of entitlement. [applause] now, any kind of culture of entitlement believes the phenomenon that we know as welfare dependency. i observed going up in west virginia the soul destroying effect of that in many non-immigrant families. i was a relatively small minority growing up in west virginia, growing up in an immigrant background. of course come if, if we go back far enough, we are all immigrants. but i was growing up mainly in

white appalachia where people's ancestors had come, you know, centuries ago. irish settlers and so forth. but i saw this phenomenon, this soul destroying phenomenon of welfare dependency. often it was well-intentioned. people wanted to help poor people. but they helped people the wrong way. making their situation worse and not better. the problem was not helping people. that is something we should all want to do. but when you make people worse, obviously, that is a bad thing. that is what i saw happening. that happens irrespective of race, sometimes people think of poverty and welfare dependency affecting only minority communities. it has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. it will hit every human being same way, irrespective of race or religion or ethnicity or

anything else. you create an entitlement mentality and culture of entitlement, it will be soul destroying for white people, black people, croatian people, asian people, it won't matter. dependency is an equal opportunity soul destroyer. this, in turn, leads to resentment. as the reason that people persuade themselves is that they are not getting ahead is because those that are better all, are cheating. and holding down the people at the bottom of the ladder. you can easily forget, even if you didn't know this happened, you could easily predict how that will shape politics. it will shape politics because it will incentivize a party of entitlement to run political campaigns based on class warfare.

why are you not getting ahead? it is because those other guys who are already there are cheating. it's not politics and corrupting politics. it has to be dealt with forcefully. those who are cheating have to be dealt with by the force of law. what you don't want to create is a situation where any political party finds that there is bread to be buttered and hate to be made by launching campaigns of class warfare. trying to exploit resentment that itself is the result of failures to get ahead, failures of opportunity created by a culture of entitlement. so the culture of entitlement ends up reinforcing an attitude

that impedes the gratitude that enables immigrants to become americans. as i said, i want immigrants to become american. i want them to believe in american ideals and institutions. i want them, with all their hearts, to believe every bit as much as i do, and that is with all my heart, that we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. the more people to that believe that, the better, because it's true. and it is the grasp of that truth that enables us to create a political order and nurture a political culture. which is supportive of the flourishing of human beings. considered as there is a profound inherent and equal dignity, creatures made in the

very image and likeness of god. i want immigrants to believe. as i want all americans to believe. i want all people to believe. in the dignity, the inherent dignity of the human being. and all stages and conditions of life. and i want them to believe in limited government, republican democracy, equality of opportunity, morally ordered liberty. not licensed, our founders knew the difference between life licensed and licentiousness. private property so essential to a the economic freedom. the rule block. this is what i want immigrants and all americans to believe these are essential to the american creed. these are the ingredients and the glue that binds us together.

i want them to believe in these ideals and principles not because they happen to be ours, but because they are noble and true and good. they honor the profound and inherent and equal dignity of all members of the human family. they call force from us, the very best that we have to offer in light governor walker said that what is really amazing about our history is that all the key junctures, there have been people of courage who have stepped forward when things looked tough. it was unclear how things were going to turn out and it was very risky. there were people of courage who step forward because they were filled with hope and faith of the american creed. to do what needed to be done.

that is right, these principles call for such people. a lot of people read these principles. when the going gets tough, you are going to have people with the courage and the substance and fortitude and the fate and hope to do what needs to be done even when it is not easy or popular even when it might put your risk you at risk of losing your political office or jobs. losing your reputation or you're standing. but you will have such people, and any nation that has such people is going to be an exceptional nation. any nation that can rely on there being such people because it has nurtured a culture in which such people are formed is going to be an exceptional nation. these ideals mobilize our efforts despite her failures and

imperfections. those are the things that those efforts have made us a great people a force for freedom and justice in the world of question and an astonishingly prosperous nation. we need to remember that an economic times. there has never been a nation as possible and prosperous as the united states america. how did that happen? it was not an accident. conditions, including cultural conditions and beliefs, including commitments and respect for principles, had to be in place to make that possible. it is little wonder that america is and as it has always been, a magnet for people from every land to seek a better life. when i started as a young professor, we were still in the cold war. i arrived at princeton in 1985

and i have just finished my graduate studies at oxford in england. in 1985, the cold war was still going on. the berlin wall and iron curtain was still there. mr. reagan had not called for mr. gorbachev to tear down the wall. and i heard a lot of, what shall we say to put it politely? negative stuff from some of my academic colleagues about america. some people even depicted america as the bad guy and the aggressor in the cold war. but i noticed something. even though he was a young guy, i didn't know much, i noticed something all the traffic was going one way. people were not fighting to get into east germany when the

soviet union. people wanted to come to the united states of america area if this is such a bad country, one people want to be here but millions and millions of people did want to be there. the transition of american ideals and principles to immigrants and indeed anyone of all peoples, including nativeborn americans, depends on where the ideals flourished. there is culture for the maintenance of ideals. it is very important to understand us. it is not just an accident. even our great constitution is not a machine that goes of itself. it likely depends on a culture that is supportive of it. and that culture is going to be constituted in very significant parts by peoples understandings and beliefs and commitments.

the maintenance of such a culture is a complicated business and has many dimensions. but in this nation of immigrants, this democratic nation of immigrants in which we the people have the privilege and the responsibility of governing ourselves, that's what it means to be a democracy, the maintenance of this culture, this culture of freedom, it's everybody's responsibility. it is not scott walker's responsibility alone. it is not barack obama's responsibility or mitt romney's responsibility. it is your responsibility and it is my responsibility. the maintenance of that culture requires every war, elvis have to be doing our part, always need to be educating ourselves so that we can be influences for good in the maintenance of that

culture. of course, it is especially the business of institutions devoted to educating and informing each new generation of americans. schools, private or public, religious or nonreligious. colleges and universities. maybe we have not done such a good job and its institutions, but we can do it and do better and perform those institutions that need to be reformed. and of course from institutions like this one. the young america foundation. institutions dedicated to forming a generation of americans capable of maintaining the culture of freedom. for such an institution, civic education, that is education that advances the understanding of our nation's constitutional principles and institutions, is a high calling and a solemn obligation. if as james madison said, only a well educated people can be permanently a free people, and

that is certainly true. then what the young america foundation seeks to do in its programs, like the one we are joined in today, is vital to the success of this grand experiment in ordered liberty that madison and the other founders bequeathed to us and to our prosperity. i thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> will thank you. we have time for two or three questions. okay, good. yes remix. >> hello, doctor george. i am from the university of st. thomas in houston texas.

coming from the great state of texas, immigration is obviously in everyday life issue with me. what is your stance on immigration and do you believe that illegal immigrants should have the same equal opportunity access as our universities and colleges for everyone else? >> illegal anything is bad for people, right? there is a reason there is a negative connotation to to the concept of illegal, at least in a country that is fundamentally just. illegal immigration is not good for people who are here illegally. they live in this shadow world, they are vulnerable to expectation and we need to do something about the problem of illegal immigration. the real dispute is what should we do about it. now, i want a pro- immigration policy. i hope they made that clear. not all conservatives agree with me about that. this is a division within the conservative house. some people think that we don't need more immigration. i think that the key -- for me,

that is wrong. we will continue to flourish as a nation of immigrants and i will tell you something. i want more americans who are just like my former star student at princeton, ted cruz. how about that? [applause] his father came with $100 sewn into his undergarment and came here with virtually nothing. and now we have this young, magnificent, soon to be united states state senator, marco rubio. the same story. we have to tackle in a serious way, the question of illegal immigration. i don't have all the answers because we have a big problem. we have millions of people who are here unlawfully. when we going to do about that? how can we resolve that problem in a way that honors the rule of law, which i think was out a

blanket answer. i don't think i can that can be done. but it deals with the reality that it really is not possible to deport all those people. in some cases, there are lots of people who have children that were born here for whom it would be a grave injustice. we have to take that seriously and we have to depoliticize it to the extent possible and really think rationally about how we will handle it. i think the foundation and baseline has to be pro- immigrant and pro- legal immigration. the key distinguish -- distortion factor should be the difference between illegal and illegal immigration. we should be doing everything we can to facilitate people coming here in an orderly fashion. i am not for open borders. there is an assimilation issue. we are very good at assimilating. we do it better than any other nation that i know, including some that are bad like australia. we are very good at assimilating.

but, you know, you can't just open the borders and let anybody who wants to come in. there are also security issues related to that. i but i think we should have a generous immigration policy, an orderly immigration policy. as far as the children go of the people who are your unlawfully, they are to a significant extent victims. we need to think about justice for them. we are human beings. it is in addition to this distinction between a legal and illegal immigration. everyone is a human being made in the image and likeness of god. you can't just say i don't care what happens to you. we are not that kind of people. there may be places where they would treat people like that, but that's not america and that's not what we want. that doesn't mean that we just accept illegal immigration. as i say, i don't have all the answers but we need work out something in a serious way that will handle the problem.

i do think a guest worker program is an essential part of any overall solution, and i do agree with those who say that we are not going to get and probably shouldn't get a guestworker solution until we really do get border security. border security, guestworker solution, generous immigration policy, not open borders, but assimilating immigrants in an orderly way. those are the potential ingredients to the plan. i will leave the details to marco rubio and mr. cruise. [applause] >> thank you. my question is, i revere the constitution and i believe it has given many opportunities for your grand parents and my grandparents. but in america, we do have a tradition of common law or laws can be changed and even our own constitution were theoretically it could be possible that murder could one day be constitutional.

how can national law play a role in this increasing tendency of this in our culture. >> he raised a great issue that would be the subject of another lengthy lecture. let me refer you to an article that i wrote about are called natural law, judicial review, and the constitution, which is included in my book, which she mentioned called a clash of orthodoxies. let me say this. there is no serious question that any intellectual historian will tell you that the concept of natural law was foundational to the american family. people like madison and jefferson believed that they were giving effect and the positive law of the constitution to principles that obtain even apart from reducing the status of law. that they were principles of justice are natural rights transcending the law and the law

should do what is best to follow and incorporate that. now, that's a different question than the question what should judges look to in interpreting the positive law of the constitution. there, i think, the role of the judge is to give effect to the understanding of the principles of the constitution. but what the public understanding of the principles when ratified. i think that is the truth in what justice scalia calls originalist. original as it is sometimes treated in constitutional interpretation, treated as an enemy of the idea of natural law and opposed view to the natural law tradition. but i don't think that is true. and i tried to explain how it all works in that article on natural law and the constitution and judicial view review. have a look at that and you can e-mail me if you have questions about it.

>> thank you for your talk. i am from harvard university. i was wondering if you think it's possible or if someone can cease to be an american, maybe someone who was born here but loses faith in the creed. do they cease to be an american in what you are referring to? >> there is a principle that we are not just to speak ill of the dead. so i really can't talk about gore vidal right now. but there is an example of someone who seems to be a person who lost faith in the american creed. now, one continues to be an american citizen. of course. it's not that anyone citizenship should be revoked. but is such a person contributing to the maintenance of a culture of forcing under a regime of constitutional government like ours? no, no. to the extent that one is

attempting to erode those core understandings and beliefs in the basic principles of our republic. one is doing harm and one is undermining the united states of america. again, without trying to paint this as a matter of absolute, i would say yes, you are not an american in the fullest and most robust defense, if you disdain or denigrate or want nothing to do it or reject the basic tenants of the american creed, the principal that all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights. if you think that our basic rights come from government, you are not a very good american. at least by the standards of the declaration of independence. if you believe the government has every right to take it away because government granted them

to you, then you're not being a very good american. i don't think that i would want to kick you out of the country, but i might want to challenge you to a nice good debate. okay? think you, everybody. [applause] [applause] >> thank you so much, doctor george. we are taking a very quick break, about three minutes, so you can stand up and stretch. but please do not go far and for those of you watching, to learn more about young america foundation, please visit us on the web at www.why af.org or call us at 1-800-usa 1776. >> more from the young america foundation foundation author ma

ying. in her book, she writes about her immigration from china to california. she contrasts big economies of china and the united states. this is an hour. >> we ensure that young students are exposed to ideas of individual freedom of strong national defense, traditional values and free enterprise. we do this by bringing speakers to campus and seminars like this one. to find out more about us please visit us at www.yaf.org. right now, have the pleasure of introducing ma ying. she graduated magna cum laude from cornell where she ran the national review -- i'm sorry, the cornell review. she also went on to get a law degree from stanford law school, one of the greatest law schools in the whole country. she then worked in the '90s on racial and gender goblins in

california. she went on a 1998 traveled to china to talk about religious freedom. she was appointed by president bill clinton. she is incredibly well respected for her writing and research. the other more topics of china, or research is about political research and freedom, and has been featured in the national review, l.a. times, the weekly standard. she wrote the chinese girl in the ghetto, while completing her degree in politics at stanford law school. if that wasn't enough, she has practiced law in new york city and has also managed corporation communications which is the first mainland china internet company. she was on the nasdaq stock market. she serves on the u.s. china economic review commission, which determines implications of u.s. economic relations with china.

she also serves on the council of foreign relations. she's an incredible inspiration and incredible young woman, who shows hard work and perseverance and intelligence can really make you go anywhere. please give a very warm welcome to ma ying. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you, rachel for that very kind introduction. it is always a pleasure and an honor for me to stand behind the young america's foundation podium. back in the day when i was in college, i worked closely with the young america's foundation to bring conservative speakers to campus. i firmly believed it then, as i do now, that higher learning works better with intellectual diversity, and i will always be

grateful to this organization for bringing that diversity to my college campus as well is to college campuses across the country. i was very excited when i got the invitation to come and speak you all today, in fact, i thought of you guys over the weekend when i went to see a movie. it was a documentary about a very famous chinese political dissident and artist, and the movie describes how and why he challenges chinese authoritarianism. and in the movie he said something that really struck me, i don't have his exact quote, but it went something like this. he said something like once you know what freedom is, once you got to know it, you can't go back. and on so many levels, he is

right because we know well as free men and women living here in the united states that we would not stand or attempts to curtail or restrict our most fundamental political rights and we would certainly resent any government effort to tell us what to say or whom to vote and how to worship. but on another level as free men and women, we have actually already willingly ceded much of our economic freedom to the government, and this was not done at gunpoint, it was not done under duress. it was not done at the threat of torture or detainment. and it wasn't done in any of the circumstances that political decisions like this gem and have to face in authoritarian countries like china. we have ceded a great deal of our economic freedom to our government because our government made promises to us. it promised to take care of us.

in return, we have accepted its offer. we limited our choices and settled for doing less for ourselves. so the government promises to take care of us when we say, okay. because nobody wants to be poor. in this bargain from the government gives us welfare programs and we give it our dependency. and perhaps even our pride and dignity. the government subsidizes us when we are old, and we are okay with that. because everyone wants to be taken care of when they are old. in this bargain, the government gives us medicare and social security and we let it take away tax dollars that we could better invest on our own, tax dollars that many of us in this room, many of you will likely never see again. the government gives us promises to give us affordable health care and we agree because it

would be great if hospital bills were not expensive. and in this bargain, the government gave us obamacare. in that exchange, we have let them impose a mandate or, according to justice john roberts, a tax on each of us to buy a health care coverage, whether we like it or not. what the government is doing is not illegal. we are the ones who have given it the power to do for us that which we no longer wish to do for ourselves. in turn, we have created the license to sap our initiatives and curtail our freedom of options. i wrote a book about freedom recently, and it is a politically incorrect memoir called transport. it describes my family's journey of getting to know freedom from chinese authoritarianism to the

brokenness of cities in california. let me just say what an honor it has been for me to follow doctor george after him talking about the immigration experience. i give credit to my host for planning the program so well. to have an immigrant follow someone who will extol the virtues of a good graces and legal immigration. just last month, i was on radio talking about this book and talking about freedom and having read the book, marveled at the fact that my family never actually received welfare benefits when we were in the ghetto. i thought she gave me way too much credit.

even back then i had firm devotions to the ideas of self-reliance and the free market. the real reason why my family never benefited from the huge -- the huge number of welfare programs that we have in this country, we either didn't qualify for them, where we did not speak enough english to figure out what they were and how they apply. and so we had to fight our way out of poverty the old-fashioned way. we worked. but i would be the first to tell you that i am not too high and mighty to, you know, say no to free government money. most of us are not. that, in fact, is very much part of the problem. the more benefits to social welfare states promised us, the harder it is for us to say no. the more benefits we see is, the

more benefits and difficult it is for us to give them up. there is no such thing as a free lunch. i certainly don't have to tell you that because there are numerous other speakers at this conference who have already told you that. our government, obviously, is spending money that it does not have. and it is spending money that you all have to repay. what i do want to emphasize is that as we relinquish more freedom to the government, we relinquish one of our ability to chart her own our own destiny. this is something that governor scott walker talked about so eloquently at the end of his speech during lunch. and it is no accident that the people who want to see more economic freedom to the government are the same people who want to spend more money, more of your money and the government money. that comes from your tax

dollars. these are the same people who want to amass more debt. these people, president barack obama being the most prominent of them, have been telling you for the past four years that unless our government spends big on big projects, that they believe in, this country will fall behind in the 21st entry. in particular, they like to point to china and tell you that we will fall behind the chinese unless we spend just like the chinese communist government does. well, unlike president obama, i was actually in china when its economic reform first took off for decades ago. i was actually there during that time, and i remember what it was like to live in a society where the free market has long been suppressed. and i described this in my book. i remember that one market

revitalization began and lurched forward in the years that followed, there was something culpable in the air. it was the excitement of being able to buy goods on the open market, rather than using food stamps allocated to buy groceries by the state. it was defense of liberation that you get from founding her own business rather than being confined to lifetime government assigned informants. it is the exhilaration of having possessions like you never thought you could have, that you never even dreamt that you could have. it was the exhilaration of human responsibility for the most basic things in your life, such as where to live, where to work, what to buy, and for how much. and for the following three decades, the chinese economy essentially took off. it grew at an annual average of approximately 10%.

and it listed that growth over 700 million people out of poverty. it lifted them out of poverty. more recently, their economy has slowed. the second second-quarter gdp growth registered at a 7.6% and that is the lowest it has been since the death of the financial crisis in 2009. yet, this is 7.6%, this is leaps and bounds better than the 1.5% gdp growth that we saw in this country. for our economy from april to june here. barack obama thinks that china's success has come from spending big on economic stimulus, infrastructure, and renewable energy. and his supporters think that if the republicans and the tea party activists would just get out of barack obama's way, if these people would just go away,

and the country can dream about making big decisions that barack obama wants to make and spending big on big projects that barack obama wants to spend on. the reality is that china's growth actually resulted from the introduction of more economic freedom and not less. even after three decades of job dropping economic growth, a lot of intervention in china continues to impede the progress of the economy, which is continuing to impose massive inefficiencies. let me just give you some examples. the sector continues to dominate the chinese economy today. and according to one congressional commission, it is directly or indirectly controlled by approximately 50% of china's gdp. as of june of last year's state state owned firms in china made

up about 80% of the country's domestic stock market capitalization, so just imagine for a moment if 80% of the dow jones industrial average were the nasdaq stock was made up of states firms. meanwhile, they enjoy a wide range of government benefits, so they get cheap loans from state banks and heavy tax subsidies. they get favoritism from regulators, oftentimes free or cheap land and they get status and competition from the private sector. and yet, with all of these government properties, the government sector is not outperforming the private sector. according to the world bank, more than one in every four state owned enterprise in china is actually losing money. on the other hand, the private sector has emerged as the most vibrant part of the chinese

economy and serves as the largest source of growth for the country's export sector. when it comes to infrastructure spending, the kind of spending the just, you know, that barack obama talks about, many of china's infrastructure products actually come at a cost that most americans could never tolerate. most of what has been billed, certainly in the past couple of years appears at the moment is downright useless. there are lots of towns in the middle of nowhere with lots of shiny concrete and metal the various people use. and very few people use them in the near future. additionally, china has built the world's largest high-speed rail system. that is another thing that barack obama fantasizes about. he secretly shares his fantasies with us and tells us how much america needs high-speed rail and how much we look to china

for inspiration. china has built their $300 billion system with a great deal of cronyism, corruption, and in fact, shoddy construction. just recently, the former rail minister, someone who is widely seen as the architect of the high-speed rail system in china, he was kicked out of the communist party because essentially he took lots of bribes. given how rampant corruption is in china, we really have to, be big on corruption in order to get kicked out of the chinese communist party. at one point he had 18 mistresses. no doubt the money he got from bribery. meanwhile, the infrastructure that builds so good for the chinese economy makes local and regional government officials in china look good, in many ways,

they are performing and are evaluated by how much and how fast they can promote gdp growth. and because infrastructure buildings do so much for gdp growth on the surface, many of these local and regional officials collude with property developers to grab land for infrastructure development, as well as for property development in general without offering these religious just compensation. unfortunately, it is the chinese people who bear the brunt of the system in which the state intrudes all the time in the marketplace. private firms in china find it harder to access capital. they find it more expensive to access capital. and they find it harder to compete with state-owned firms that are available to get government preferences. when the state owned firms get into the real estate market,

with all the money that they have. they end up driving up prices for regular chinese citizens. and it is these chinese citizens that you have to coach with realistic prices in the stratosphere. when the government unleashes a torrent of being funny, that is exactly how china got out of the financial crisis recently. where a lot of other countries just borrowed, china unleashed this credit binge through this. it was once again the chinese people who had to pay more in the marketplace where prices kept on going up. regardless come the chinese economic situation took off and it took off in the past three decades because of the can-do attitude and the entrepreneurial spirit of the chinese people. it came about, thanks to every man and woman who worked hard

and learned new skills, took risks, and of course if they lived in this country, president barack obama would tell them that you did not build that. but instead, what he is telling us is just that the chinese state built much of china's success and we often emulated. and his supporters tell us that china does not suffer from america's favorite democratic gridlock. they don't have a medal from the tea party or an opposition party who would stand in the way of their grand plans. so this november, every american has a decision to make. you know, in this country, where people constantly complain that we cannot make big decisions, we actually have a pretty big decision to make, that china was

actually not allowing citizens to make regarding their readers. we get to decide who our political leaders are going to be, most importantly, who our next president will be. and we must decide whether to continue to see our freedoms to the government or not. will we continue to let barack obama promised to run our economy and take care mr. big government, or will we choose a freer marketplace? >> we know that even the ability to exercise their political franchise, the chinese as an have chosen economic freedoms every time they have been given the chance. the subject of the documentary film that i went to see over the weekend was right. he is right that once you are a free man or woman, you can go back to being a slave. so three men and women living in america, we are going to have to allow ourselves to make more of our own decisions.

hopefully we will choose to take back our economic freedoms that we have relinquished to the state. i will take any questions you have. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> yes, we will start on the side. >> hello, i'm from hillsdale college. i was wondering what your take is on the recent cheng guangcheng, the chinese dissident and how the obama administration reacted to his escape from house arrest in his time in new york city and how the administration is taking it and want your reaction to that is. >> the administration certainly has gotten a fair amount of

flack for. i think they give it to itself. when it came to office, the administration made it very clear that it was going to be the on george w. bush. one of the things that president bush did was promote and advocate for dissidents everywhere. the obama administration was the one responsible for giving impressions to the world that they didn't care about those issues. i think there is more rhetoric to that and customs, but regardless, it kind of did itself in. when mr. cheng guangcheng came along, i think in the beginning there was a fair amount of confusion and i think he himself was fairly confused, too. he was under a two --minus-sign pressure when he escaped to our embassy. and keep in mind that he is blind. so i think he was much more stressed out than the rest of us might be in a very stressful

situation like that. and i think what had happened is they actually crafted this deal according to his wishes. he had a professor at nyu that he requested. they did give them access to it and they did do all these things were they asked mr. cheng guangcheng 41 after the crafted an arrangement that they thought mr. cheng guangcheng wanted. he made it clear that he wanted to stay in china. he did not want to become irrelevant by just coming here because a lot of political dissidents were exiled here in america. they are forgotten back in their home country. and so originally come about is the deal. he would stay in china and continue to fight. but the deal quickly unraveled as soon as he left the embassy. part of it was that the embassy did not handle it as well as they could have.

he really freaked out at the hospital, especially when he learned what the government had done to his friends and relatives. then he had a change of mind. i actually worked with the embassy staff in beijing over the years, and i don't think that i would give them the benefit of the doubt without knowing all the details. all the inside negotiations and i think in the end, when mr. cheng guangcheng changed his mind, i think they wanted to extract amount of time and i'm really glad he is here. in the beginning, i don't think that we pressured him to stay in china. he was the one who wanted to stay there. so i'm glad he is no longer being detained and threatened over there. >> i have a lot of chinese friends and a lot of families are immigrating to the united

states. why do you think -- what is the obama administration's love affair with china. regardless of their education, what economic policy do they have? >> i'm not sure i would call it a love affair. i think obama wishes that he could make decisions with the kind of speed and authority that the chinese government does. i think that he fantasizes about implementing the big projects that they can implement without, you know, any accountability to the people without being subject. and you know, he has to go through an election cycle. democrats in congress do, too. people in china don't have to do that. so they can make decisions a lot faster. i think that there are lots of issues that this administration has actually disagreed with the chinese on.

for instance, it has been more hawkish on trade issues with china compared to the bush administration, simply because democrats often times tend to be less pro- free trade. and so the obama administration has taken that test under a tree disputes. but i think the love affair you are talking about, it is what i was referring to in my talk at the obama administration just seems so envious of what is happening in china, and i think for a lot of liberals, they are naturally inclined to believe in big government and there is no bigger government that appears to work okay than that of china. as you look at russia, because the government doesn't seem to be producing the kind of economic growth that china is. you know, in china is constantly trying to work on these big problems that liberals are in love with. renewable energy, high-speed rail, infrastructure spending, lots of economic stimulus.

it just sucks their fantasy to the point where it sets their fantasy on fire. barack obama would love to be able to do what they do. but he knows that he cannot. so he gripes about it. >> ben smith, university of north carolina at chapel hill. this past semester i had a class on modern history which coverage china, japan, and korea. one of the things that we have a debate about was a debate over the future of china. in one of the questions i have is what do you see the future of china. will they continue to have the same control or do you think the people will eventually come in the next 50 years, overcome the government? >> it is hard to say. i think that we can look at this on a couple of different levels.

one is on the economic front. there is a raging battle going on in china between the state and the free market. there is a battle there just like there is a battle here. economic reform has taken place and proceeded for the past five years and certainly since the financial crisis. a lot of reform minded people as the have seen the economy take a much more active role in the economy, the government taking a more active role in the economy and people are beginning to see them coming back with a roar. and i think there are lots of people in china would like to cite check against that. we would like the free market to continue, opening the chinese market domestically as well as internationally. it is going to be a very hard

process. on the political front, it is a lot trickier since the chinese government allows wireless political freedom than it does economic freedom. in fact, it actively depresses clinical freedom. at some point, what is going to happen is you are not going to be able to separate the two, even though the chinese government has made every attempt and has been relatively successful at separating the two so far. you can make money if you want, as long as you don't criticize us. the problem is that political accountability goes a long way for a free-market society. you cannot have a truly puncturing free-market unless you have transparency in those things often come from political

accountability to, in this country, oftentimes, that comes from elections and also having the judiciaries be a separate branch, checks and balances come all of those things. those elements are there in china and they have come to the point where, and in fact, i was in china last year and i spoke to a very pro- market reformer who is a government official. he says that ultimately, the contradictions that you see in china are ultimately political contradictions because you can't get away. is the chinese government going to ultimately relinquish its control and the economy? well, communism is all about control. so if you are trying to control the political aspect, there are all kinds of things on the economic aspect we will probably be willing to let go.

you don't want massive unemployment. if there is that massive unemployment come these people might be in the streets protesting against your political -- your political stances and practices. i think ultimately, i would say that these contradictions will have to work themselves out. i hope it won't be through violent means. i also give credit to the chinese government for doing lots reform within. over the years it has tried to promote people who are competent and try to promote people who are well educated and technical. but ultimately, the party is above everything else. down the road, that will be a huge problem for political and economic reform.