>> the first with author and politl commentator ann coulter who discusses immigration policy and health care. that's followed by a discussion on the russian intervention in ukraine. and later a look at the u.s. relationship with israel and the influence of pro-israel lobbying groups. >> on capitol hill, the senate returns today at 4:00 eastern

time for a period of general speeches followed by debate and a procedural vote on a u.s. district court nomination. that'll be followed by a vote on legislation sponsored by senator claire mccaskill dealing with sexual assaults in the military a. also on the agenda, senate democrats plan an all-night session to talk about climate change and other environmental issues. over in the house, there's no legislative business today. the chamber will gavel in at 2:00 eastern for a pro forma session. the house will return tomorrow at noon with eight suspension bills being considered including a resolution that calls on the u.s. to impose sanctions on russia for its intervention in ukraine. you can watch live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate here on c-span2. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your television provider.

>> host: and fadi chehade is the president and ceo of the internet corporation for assigned names and numberses, also known as ica, this n. what do you do? >> guest: the doe neighbor maim -- domain name system, the numbers which are underneath us which insure that every device on planet has a unique number and the political parameters. whilst the policies are developed in different place, icann insures their security, their resiliency and insure that there's proper multistakeholder oversight over our functions so that we have legitimacy in these roles. >> host: who sanctions you? >> guest: so icann, really, the

history of icann started from the time darpa started, and under president clinton's administration there was a move to create icann as an independent, private, nonprofit institution that is responsible too coordinate these -- to coordinate these things globally for the planet. and in that regard, we have done this job very well. the dns has not been down once in many, many decades. it's working very well. and we insure that the stakeholders have a seat at the table and guide us along the way. and the stakeholders here are businesses, governments -- we have over 130 governments sitting on icamn committees -- we have civil society, we have technical organizations, we have academics. all of them sitting on equal feeting and making sure they share the planet well.

>> host: are there any competitors to icanning? >> no. this role cannot be performed by more than one player. if more than one entity manages to key identifiers of the internet, hen by nature the internet will no longer be one net. at the heart, for example, of the domain name system is the root services system. and very few people appreciate that in order to resolve names on the internet, there is an actual root system that makes that work for the entire planet. all names are resolved to insure that when you type www.c-span.org, for example, or any other web site name, you go to the exact site that c-span wants you to go to all the time, every time for the last two-plus decades. >> host: how are you funded? >> guest: when people buy web site names, there's a very small fee, a very small part of what

they pay the registrar that comes to icann. that ends up to somewhere north of $90 million a year, and that's what icann uses to performing its functions. >> host: and where are you based? >> guest: good question. icann's home has been los angeles for a long time. but since i started i've taken the concept of a headquarter office and divided in what i call a triquarter office. and we now operate our core functions, all of you our core functions from three cities on the planet, los angeles, istanbul and singapore. this way we can offer stakeholders on the planet around the clock support and coordinated support because we also deploy what we call stakeholder relationship management systems in order to make sure that any stakeholder around the planet if they call any of our operational head quarters or triquarters, they

get follow-up service at any time of day in a unified, structured way. >> host: fadi chehade, how'd you get this job? >> guest: my name was put into the lot of applicants. frankly, i had not known ica, this n well other than when you buy a web site name, you and i see the word icann, and someone suggested that i would do well to to serve the internet community that, frankly, gave me so much. my entire career was based on leveraging the great permissionless innovation that is allowed on the internet to create companies and create value. iwm had bought my last -- ibm had bought my last company, and i was starting another company when my name was put into the lot. icann has a nominating committee that the board put in place. that committee, working with a search firm, went through tens of applicant, and i was the finalist. and i feel very -- i remain very

humbled and honored by the choice the icann board has made. >> host: well, joining us to discuss some of the policy issues is erin her chan of politico. >> yes, paddy, i think -- fadi, it's an exciting time for icann right now. i know you guys are about to launch new, generic top-level domains program, and i wonder if you could speak about where you are in the process, uni, what is -- you know, what is about to happen to the internet that we all use every day? >> guest: enshrined this the bylaws of icann and icann needs to provide competition and choice for consumers when they interact and participate in the domain name system. essentially, the naming of all the sites on the internet. and so several years ago, almost eight years ago now, the community got together and started discussing how might we

do that. today, as you know, countries have country cold top-level -- cub code top-level doe neighbors. -- domains. of course, most people know about dot.com and dot.org, but there are actually 22 of them. seven, eight years ago then the community said why don't we expand that. why don't we provide more choice and more competition in that market by opening it up. and, indeed, that's what happened. many companies applied. the process was long and complicated. and we are now at literally the cusp of starting to add new top-level domains, generic top-level domains to the root system of the internet that i mentioned earlier. and the moment we add them and they pass certain steps to insure stability and resiliency of the root -- because we need

the root to be stable and resilient -- then they'll be available for the consumers. in fact, many registrars already offer them in a preregistration mode so you can already go and buy names on new top-level domains like, you know, whether brands, there are brands or there are cities or there are communities, or they are purely south korea network. so new york city has dot.nyc. rio is waiting anxiously before the games for a dot.rio, so on and so forth. brands also have their own, and communities. i want to emphasize this because i belong to a minority community where i came from, and finding each other in cyberspace is also important. so new, top-level domains will give the opportunity nor communities to express their -- for communities to express their identity on the web. last but not least, remember that we opened up in a very

major way the use of nonlatin characters in the top-level domain. so, in fact, the very, very first that was approved was spelled arabic script. there will be more in cyrillic script and more in chinese script and so on. >> so, i mean, i think you mentioned quite a number, i think there's going to be over a thousand potential new, top-level generic names, that's obviously going to be a shock for some consumers who are used to just seeing dot.com, dot.org. you guys have played a huge role, and i'm wondering what is icann's role going forward to educate consumers for these new top-level domains, that they exist, that consumers can safely navigate to to something that they're not used to seeing? >> guest: yes. icann will have a role, and we will have campaigns to support the consumer mostly. they're not campaigns so that we

can get more people to apply. this is not be, frankly, our focus. we operate in the public interest. and in the public interest it's important we give consumers a sense of safety about using these new domains, a sense of understanding the choices he was. it's becoming more and more difficult sometimes to find the name you want on the existing top-level domains, so now they have the possibilities to express themselves differently are. i also want to note that many of the new applicants are also engaged in that, these public campaigns, you know, maybe for their own interests, but they will also be engaged in explaining to consumers how choice and opportunity to brand or to gather or to build community in the virtual space is now made more possible and broader through the new gtl program. >> host: fadi chehade, what did

it cost the city of new york to get nyc? >> guest: so every applicant paid the same fee except a few applicants where we provided some support in order to also support applicants from developing regions and so on. but in general every applicant paid $185,000 as a set-up fee. and that fee is turning out to be about right, was the cost of insuring that these applicants know how to or not these new registries -- because they become registries, right? people can buy then, restaurants.nyc, etc. so they need to serve these people that will put maybe their communities or their businesses or their blogs. we want to make sure these registries are stable, therefore, there are the -- the fees went to insure they're financially ready, they're technically ready, they are operated in a way that would

insure stability for the consumer. and, of course, there were many, many, many steps to each of these applications. some applications had confusingly similar strings, some applications had competition over the same name, so we had to go through processes. and that was the reason for that fee. i'm hoping in the next round the fee will be lower. i think the fee was a barrier for some folks, and we would like to see that the learnings from this round of new -- [inaudible] would lead us to, hopefully, a lower fee. >> host: how many generic top level domain names, gtlds, do you see in the the future? >> guest: i do see the potential for thousands. not because i have very specific knowledge of that, but because be my sense is as that space opens -- and it's a limitless

spas, obviously, you can have as many as you want -- and, indeed, the domain name becomes an an expression of brand or community or a certain type of service on the internet. and as the internet grows just naturally, i mean, the number of users on the internet is growing in spades as we speak, i think that we will see many more of them. now, many, i am certain, will fail. it is not guaranteed that every one with of them will do well. therefore, it's important to look what's behind the name, not just the name a. name. so dot.green may sound like a superb generic name because it conjures things all of us would represent. but what's more important is the wiz plan behind dot.green and how it will serve the people on dot.green and the fidelity of

the business to that space and what that space represents. so the market will decide. it's not up to icann. icann gains solely by making sure that the domain system, again, is always available, always stable, resill cent, secure -- resilient, secure and open, open so everyone can participate in it. that's our job. >> host: erin. >> guest: i mean, you listed a number of really exciting things, i think, about program, but i know there has also been a lot of concern from folks like trademark holders who are worried they might have to register their name in an untold number of these names. so c-span.org might also have to worry about c-span.book. are they going to have to do that? is this a lot of extra cost and hassle for big brands that are worried about this? >> guest: yeah. look, there is no question that those who own brands and trademarks and, by the way, i come from that community, i was,

i built many businesses and many brands, and i own many of my own. so i'm very, i'm deeply appreciative of the need to protect these assets. i understand that. as i have been engaged with that community, i explain that rather than be defensive and, frankly, operate in that new space without strategy which is to say, fine, we will buy c-span on everything which would be, frankly, would be costly but also a easy, we're encouraging trademark owners to actually build real strategies. this is a portfolio. you're building a portfolio of spaces. and they need to understand what is coming, participate in it with care, with wisdom rather than just a generic shot of buying, because that's the easiest way to protect. we also, in fairness to icann, icamn has done a remarkable job

to actually put protections more these owners. icann has introduced the very first global trademark clearinghouse. there's no other place on the planet where you can actually do that, where you can literally register your name, and anybody buying a domain on any top-level domain on the planet will have to contend with what people registered this that place. and -- in that place. and if people buy domains that breach somebody's trademark, they will be informed, and then there is a process to also insure that trademarks stay with their owners. and then the last thing i'll say as someone who built businesses is that it is important for trademark owners to look at the other side of the coin. indeed, it is a cost to register that name, but there's also an opportunity. and that opportunity has a value. i met one big brand owner that applied for a dot their brand recently, and i asked them when they were discussing their

brand, i said what do you plan to do with dot.your brand? he says, i haven't a clue. i said, well, why did you pay clash 185,000? oh, he says, the corporate risk department said buy it. so i encouraged him, as i would encourage every business, to talk to their marketing people, talk to their business development people, talk to their internationalization departments to understand how these new real estate that they have on the internet can be leveraged for opportunity. and as a businessman, i assure you i've hard some business plans of new glds, it's impressive. there are some great ideas. >> host: fadi chehade, there's some controversial though, aren't there? like dot.sucks, dot.sexy. >> guest: yes. that comes with anything we do in life, as you know. as with good things come also the freedom that we cherish in this world comes also with

expressions that, you know, you and i may not agree with. but it's the openness and the freedom that the internet offers, and we have to respect that so long as it is not against any laws or policies of icann, we grant these names. i think that this comes with any medium, and that's no different than any other. >> i'd like to shift gears a little bit. >> guest: sure. >> i know under your leadership icann has taken a much more active debate in the -- [inaudible] you had a statement from a number of players from montevideo last year, it offered a rebuke of the government surveillance practices that were revealed last summer, and i was hoping you could speak where you see ica, this n's role -- actually with, let me start first with how have those revelations changed the conversation about internet governance in the last few months?

>> guest: i think the equation between privacy on the internet and security on the internet was modulated by the amount of trust that exists in the system. if i trust you, i'll let you see more of my private information. as the revelations reduced that trust in the system, the pendulum swung towards more secured view of how the internet should look like. i think that that has had a pretty important impact on the dialogue we're having in internet governance. because with trust being punctured a little bit through these revelations, it becomes more complicateed how we established what i call governance networks that give people a sense of balance

between the private and the secure. and governance networks, just like ones that we established decades ago for other things like armaments, need to be based on checks and balance. and checks and balances which underpin, for example, our u.s. government system need to permeate how we manage the internet moving forward. it's very, very critical, and i think that the world is ready to see how internet governance evolves from where it is today into a model that i'm calling networks of governance or governance networks that do not have a central core, but that are based on common principles and that enable stakeholders in a way that is effective, that is legitimate and that is dynamic, because the internet changes every day, to come together and

to address specific issues in the space. and that dialogue is starting right now, and it is very central to the debate going on in the world about how we govern the internet in the future. >> host: fadi chehade, would that lead to the u.s. losing control of governance of the internet? >> guest: no, because losing control assumes that the u.s. has control today other the internet -- over the internet. the u.s. in its wisdom and its stewardship of the icann functions from the beginning appreciated that these functions are the world's functions. and even icann in its founding as well as in the original plans that were set in place for icann to do its job are, it was very clear that it's a matter of time. as soon as icann is ready operationally and institutionally and has the legitimacy of a global organization that the function that the u.s. has today -- which

is a very minimal function of oversight on some of the things we do -- will be passed on to icamn through its multistakeholder accountability mechanisms. so the u.s., the control over the internet at the level of ica in hn's work -- icann's work is really in the hands already of the stakeholders. it is not in the hands of the u.s. what the u.s. simply has is a stewardship, i call it, rather than oversight, a stewardship role to insure that the core functions we do are done according to the policy set by all the stakeholders, not by the u.s. government. and i think as i i mentioned recently on a recent trip that it is time for the u.s. to consider that this stewardship is ready to be passed to the stakeholders. as it has alwaysen visaged. the time has come. ask and i think the u.s.

appreciates that and appreciates that it's the interests of the u.s. and the interest of the world for the stewardship to go to the multistakeholder mode el at icann. >> i mean, in that case is there someone or some entity that takes over the oversight function of icann or -- >> guest: icann itself is made legitimate through its accountability to all the stake hold holders. everything at icann, i know i have the president constitute l l, but frankly, most things get decided by the stakeholders, not me. bottom up. and it works. it has worked for years, and it will continue to work. i think the u.s. government in its wisdom wanted to wait until they were certain that the bottom-up multistakeholder model of accountability at icann is working well, it's delivering good results. the leaders of the staff at ica, this n are -- icann are able to

institutionalize these functions and follow this very important spirit, and as soon as that is all in place -- which we believe is in place now -- the u.s. government would be, should be comforted in achieving what it had always, again, envisioned from the gunning. and time -- from the beginning. and the time is now. >> in those governance networks that you were talking about given where you'd want icann to go, what do you see as icann's role that you said is sort of starting now? >> guest: so, first of all, ica this, n's -- icann should stay where it's supposed to be to manage the, to coordinate the names, numbers and protocol parameters and their implementation according to the policies set by the community, the broad community. and i am a firm believer that icann should stay focused on just that. but, now, how does it fit into

my definition of a governance network? ica, this n itself is a governance network, right? and there will be other governance networks. our governance n happens to include 130 governments, ex-businesses, ex-technical people, etc., who come together and define how icann's policies are set and how we implement what we're supposed to do in the public interest. but there will be other governance networks, so icann does not have to and should not expand its scope. >> i know you're headed to brazil in april to sort of begin these conversations on a very global stage. can you talk a little bit about the agenda for that meeting and what you hope to accomplish there? >> guest: certainly. brazil is going to be one of many milestones next year to set the tone of internet governance in a multistakeholder approach. the conference in brazil, which is called the

multistakeholder -- the future of multistakeholder internet governance, that's the name of the conference, was called for by president due receive on april 23rd is a chance for governments, businesses, civil society and technical organizations to all come together and start discussing the networks of governance for the future and how should they look like, what are the principles we will adopt, how will we manage them. i am, frankly, very hopeful that this conference will produce two things. first, it'll produce a document that describes the core internet governance principles that would define how these networks of governance or governance networks will evolve. and these are important principles, because at the heart of any network or any governance model we need to agree on common principles. the second thing it will do is it will take the existing

internet governance ecosystem and evolve it and then expand it. now, these are two different things. evolve it means to take what works very well today and insure that it continues to work for the future. and we will do that. in addition, we need to expand it. what do i mean by expand it? today our very well-working internet governance ecosystem largely address things, what we call things off the internet, not things on the internet. so how the internet works. something like what icann does. increasingly, the world is focused on how to we govern what's on the internet p essentially, the use of the internet. and we need to make sure that our multitake holder -- multistakeholder mechanisms extend into that space as well. to be frank, last year in

december, two years ago in 2012 there was major conference called the wicked that was organized by the itu, the u.n. agency, and at that wicked conference in dubai it was a very difficult moment, by the way, because there were many countries that did not know how to address issues that were left unaddressed on the table. and when they pressed many of us to say where do i take this issue, i have an issue, i don't know, in cyberbullying, i want to discuss best practices for that issue, where do i take them? we did not have a mechanism to lead hem to that is -- them to that is truly multistakeholder to address this issue. now we can no longer simply say we don't know. it's been over a year, and people need some answers. so that's what we're hoping to achieve and e preserve. disms and, unfortunately, we are out of time. fadi chehade is president and

ceo of icann, the internet corporation for assigned names and numbers, and erin merchon is a technology reporter with politico. thank you. >> guest: thank you. >> thank you. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your television provider. >> coming up next, a couple of panels from this past weekend's conservative political action conference. we'll hear first from author and political commentator ann coulter and mickey kaus of the daily caller on immigration, health care and the midterm elections. that's followed by an analysis of russia's intervention this ukraine with former undersecretary of state paula dobriansky. then a look at the influence of pro-israel lobbying groups.

and later, at 4:00 eastern, the senate returns for a period of general speeches followed by debate and a procedural vote on a u.s. district court nomination. also a vote on a bill sponsored by senator claire mccaskill dealing with sexual assaults in the military. >> the conservative political action conference was held over the weekend just outside the nation's capital. one of the sessions featured a discussion with author and political commentator ann coulter and daily caller contributor mick cay kau -- mickey kaus. the conversation was moderated by jonathan garthwaite of town hall.com. this is half an hour. ♪ ♪ [applause] >> hi, folk, are you ready? all right. so we'll be dividing today's firing line into three segments.

in the first i'll ask both guests questions. in the second the guests will go at each other a bit, and then in the third you'll get some questions from the audience that you'll have to tweet to cpac news. in the best tradition of bill buckley, please make your questions biting and -- [inaudible] [laughter] it's time to introduce our firing line conned -- contenders. today's liberal now writes for the daily caller. he's an author and former democratic u.s. senate candidate who blogs for kaus files. ladies and gentlemen, mickey kaus. [applause] all right. and our conservative, can you guess? do you know? [cheers and applause] is a ten-time phi times

best-selling author, a few of those for regnery publishing, syndicated column u.s., legal correspondent for human events and is, obviously, a fixture on cable news, please welcome our firing line femme fatale, ann coulter. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you. here? >> that's fine, right there. >> mickey, you want to close on in so we can get closer? we can get started. all right, first segment. i'm going to go at you guys a bit first. so, miss coulter -- >> yes. >> as a proud university of michigan law school grad -- [cheers and applause] this which class did you learn that the president of the united states only had to enforce the laws in which they agree? [laughter] >> no, i learned that at a grateful dead concert, not -- [laughter] not university of michigan law school. no, i mean, it is a serious

point, the way obama is -- it is unconstitutional legislating from the white house. the constitution divides up branches, it's the congress that's supposed to write the laws, and it's very, you know, care any designed. you have senators for six years and members of the to house for two years, that's the people's house, and they write the bills, the president can suggest stuff, but his only role in the writing of legislation is to veto it. and if he doesn't veto it, then it becomes law. that is not what obama has been doing. most obviously or at least the most talked about has been with obamacare, and i think most egregiously with our immigration laws. at least with obamacare, people talk about it. and it's kind of a tough one for republicans because we were the ones who fought to get these

waivers put in. he rejected, he -- obama -- rejected them. now he's just doing it in a way that's unconstitutional, oh, i just won't apply this heinous law. well, we won't apply it to congress, won't apply it to unions, won't apply it to big business, now we won't apply it to small businesses. so a small number of being screwed, but it's a tough argument for republicans because we want the whole thing waived. so how do you complain about him waiving it for only 95% of america? with immigration it's quite the opposite. you have, well, you have the democrats who want more immigrants, and particularly illegal immigrants because they need brand new voters, just warm bodies, more votes. [applause] amnesty goes through, and the democrats have 30 million new voters. i just don't think republicans have an obligation to forgive law breaking just because the democrats need another 30 million voters.

[cheers and applause] you have big business, and businesses generally who want it, you have yuppies who want it. so in l.a. they have gardeners even when they don't have a garden. [laughter] lay wore so -- lay -- labor so cheap, those are the big groups that want it, but the american -- the only people on the other side are the american people. this is the issue republicans should be screaming about executive orders on. >> mr. kaus, can president pick and choose? >> no, he can't, and i'm pretty confident the supreme court will pin back his ears. that's one thing lawyers are good at -- [applause] is, you know, keeping people in the bounds of their power. and if you've ever clerked for a judge, it's not all -- it doesn't all go by what the rules are, it's in large part do you feel guy needs to be reined in. and i think the supreme court will feel that. what strikes me is how despite

the fact that obama is untrustworthy on immigration, i mean, he said i can't am mess i the dreamers -- amnesty the dreamers and then when the election was looming, he went ahead and did it anyway, the republican leadership still presses ahead for amnesty including john boehner in the house. and i don't -- i don't understand why. i mean, democrats have a perfectly good reason for amnesty which is crane ethnic pandering which is going to insure our power over next few generations. [laughter] but what's the republican? >> next, mr. kaus, so isn't doubling the national debt in order to make america process produce analogous to russia invading ukraine to set it free? >> well, i think the better, the better paradox is reagan's -- this is the liberal coming out, there are a new vestigial signs of liberalism yet -- reagan said

he was going to lower tax rates. we know how that you turned outt didn't happen. i was reading david fromm, a conservative who may not be that popular, he invests his money on the basis of theories of paul krugman. [laughter] and he's made a lot of money. and he is veryuateful to krugman -- grateful to krugman who correctly predicted inflation wouldn't be a problem and says our debt isn't all that bad. and i don't think it is all that bad. it is due to explode when the baby boomers need their medicare which is very soon, but there's an obvious answer that both parties are going to gravitate towards which is means testing. make the rich pay more for their medicare. keep them in the system, but make them pay more. and i think that will so solve the budget problem. >> could i just say -- one is it just has to be said whenever a liberal said what huck key just said, when reagan cut taxes, more revenue didn't come into

the treasury department. [applause] he got, you know, every year taxes went down, and i think this is in every single thomas seoul book. every year taxes were cut, more money came into the united states treasury -- [applause] the problem was tip o'neill would spend three times as much for every dollar that would come in. now we'll spend another three -- prison. [applause] and as for the future of entitlements, again, everything always comes back to immigration. we are talking about bringing in 1.2 million poor people per year here. that's going to be sustaining social security? that's going to be sustaining medicare? and on top of that, something i think people haven't really noticed, what -- well, certainly they've noticed on msnbc where they are celebrating the browning of america. but if you don't celebrate it, you're a racist. it is going to be people who are not from america who are going to be, in theory, funding older

white people who are getting to their social security, medicare age. i don't think that can last. i mean, at some point they're going to say, screw it. >> third question for you, ms. coulter. what's the over/under of number of years before it's illegal to criticize a democratic president? [laughter] >> i think, i think obama is different from the rest of them. i mean, i get as probably a little of you do a little depressed thinking about who we're going to run next. [laughter] but then i look at their field. [laughter] i mean, once the obama magic is gone, we are not going to have people fainting at, you know, joe bind rallies. [laughter] [applause] or -- and, i mean, you sort of have to lobotomize yourself from all of obama's powells to recognize this -- policies to

recognize this, but i do think he is the most charming, elegant, articulate person the democrats have run for president in my lifetime. you take him out of equation, what, hillary? biden? hopefully governor moonbeam, andrew cuomo. and then, and then hopefully we'll have free speech against democrats again. >> all right. >> governor moonbeam isn't that bad. i mean, in california we see what the future of politics is if we have amnesty which is the republican party is irrelevant in california. we don't care about them, all that stuff about abortion, cultural issues, forget it. it's not in the picture. democrats are governing the state. and because of that, democrats have to be responsible. we can't blame republicans anymore. and the democrats have been fairly responsible. so one-party government has worked pretty well in california. [laughter] >> all right. so now we take the gloves off. it's the you against each other.

mr. kaus? your question for ann. >> ann, why haven't republicans stepped up on amnesty? is i don't quite understand it. i looked at -- i spent all day yesterday looking at the republican new ideas of fighting poverty -- [laughter] because i mow you have a positive message of new ideas. and it's really sort of a motley lot of sort of mid-level tinkering with tax rates and allocations, and we'll only fund health care to three times poverty, not four times poverty. [laughter] none of that will do good, in any way compensate for the negative effect of amnesty on unskilled and poor americans. paul ryan says he's got to lift them up, but he's pushing them down with the other hand. >> right. >> what is it with your party that's fallen -- republican voters don't like it. look what happened to marco rubio when he endorsed amnesty.

why does the republican party persist in this suicidal rush? >> it's baffling. it's one of those questions like how high is up, why they keep doing this. i mean, part of it is you do not hear the truth about immigration or amnesty any place in the media. you can hear, i guess, on some of the blogs. there's no issue that is of much importance to america and americans that is so hidden from public view as immigration. i mean, you're talking about who votes. one of my friends told me yesterday, i don't know if any of you were in on this, but this was a big facebook debate someplace about, you know, liberals acting up and should we just throw texas out of the union, was it's so conservative? >> yes! >> and they're going back and forth on this -- [laughter] and i e-mailed him back and said, well, that's what, that's what amnesty doesment that's it -- does. that's it, 24 million conservative voters overwhelmed,

gone. the country does become california. why republicans are rushing headlong into this, some of it is cowardice. they feel like we lost the last election and, oh, please, hispanics, will you vote more me many look at the polls. hispanics don't care about amnesty. as mickey just said, who gets hurt by bringing in more low-wage workers? the million you brought in last year. and the year before and the year before. i mean, my whole life i've heard republicans hate black people, i've never seen any evidence of it until i read marco rubio's amnesty bill. we are the party that has always stood up for african-americans. who gets hurt the most by amnesty, by continuing these immigration policies? it is low wage workers, it is hispanics -- [applause] it is blacks. and the fact that republicans don't understand that, can't grasp it, you say rubio was hurt by it. it wasn't just rubio.

mccain, bush. as you've written in your blog, it's like a zombie amnesty. of we can't kill it. they keep going back to it -- [laughter] and my assumption is it's the lobbyists. and it may not be the congressmen and the senators themselves who want the job lobbying, but i think their staff does. .. and the minimum wage naturally

rises. [applause] i thought you guys cared about the poor working class? >> it's hard to me to defend the democrats on the. there were some senators, like byron dorgan, byron dorgan, he opposed immigration amnesty for precisely this reason. he was defending irking class wages. bernie sanders opposed amnesty until obama on them off with a 1.5 billion bs jobs program. so that took care of bernie sanders. that some journalists on the left of "the new republic" like tom frank the wrote one of those articles written on immigration amnesty. this is a plan for cheap labor, we are on the left, we are supposed to oppose this. you will not see those people on the floor of the senate until amnesty passes. then all of a sudden they will say, like tony blair says about his immigration policies in europe, maybe we made a big

mistake. then it's too late. that's the difference between an this debate and the tax debate is taxes, we can always raise them later or lower them later if we don't like it. amnesty, there's no do overs. once you let people in they are here. >> that's like more important than obamacare. if i can list a few other democrats, clinton was in favor. the jordan report came out, harry reid once called the anchor baby philosophy which is not in the constitution, it is from a justice brennan footnote, harry reid called the anchor baby law or ruling in sandy. of course, it's insanity. so there was an to democrats but are not just they just think screw the country, screw low wage workers. we want our 30 million voters. >> it's the triumph of ethnic politics over economic politics. as an old marxist i remember the time in the '60s when people

came in and said it's not -- its effect were black or hispanic. we said you're crazy. we are marxist. all workers are the same. doesn't matter which color they are. but they have one. they taken over the democratic party. >> we have the question or ms. coulter. >> this is only transition the red to amnesty, although everything is, even charles murray agrees that america is coming apart. my right wing friends agree with the. my left wing friends agree with the. it's not just the incomes are growing more unequal but culturally the rich are growing very distant from the poor in behavioral terms as well as money terms. this is murray's thesis. the rich have two parent families, the poor don't anymore. the poor have babies out of wedlock. does anybody on the right have a solution to this problem? >> i think murray does. part of the problem is, and i

completely agree with charles murray on this, you read these terrifying divorce statistics and find out their completely different for college educated people and those without, or with only a high school degree. the unwed motherhood raid, and that just feeds upon itself. the one thing that's really changed, besides going to the government often subsidizing bad behavior give hollywood rewarding bad behavior. there's also an overwhelming cultural sense, i think it is a political correctness, to end shaming. shaming is good. this is how, it's almost a cruel and selfish as saying for the operate classes, for the educated, for the college graduates to refuse to tell poor people, keep your knees together

the for a you are married. that will solve so many of life's problems. no, no, no. you're into the ring with their cultural mores. that is something very strange about our friend steve sailer, has written about the problem of littering among immigrant communities big is something i didn't live there but in the 50s apparently all americans littered a lot. who started a campaign shaming americans out of littering with the indian and keep america beautiful act? it was the corporations themselves. no government action. of producing these products with disposable cans and plates and someone and they didn't want it all over the landscape. so it was anheuser-busch and other companies got together and funded these ads to shame americans out of littering. now at all of these national

parks in california where the littering is coming from recent immigrants, we can't suggest that anyone group is doing it. let's just shut the park your that's what they're doing. this is always a solution. we don't want to stigmatize anyone. sometimes the statement is good. they stigmatized smoking out of existence. how about stigmatizing unwed motherhood, littering, running across the border illegally? how about stigmatizing at? can we just do that? [applause] >> i've lost track of whose turn it is but let me throw in a question from the audience. usually comes up every year. it's the marriage proposal. >> could you stay on, please?him clinton doesn't run, are you a biden man? >> i am deathly not a biden man.

like ann i despair of my field until i look at your field. i voted for obama. i voted for obama to undergo for him last time. [booing] because i thought he would enact obamacare. i didn't really see screwed up but i thought he would enact obamacare and that he wouldn't get amnesty done. so far he hasn't disappointed me. has not gotten amnesty done and it seems to me that all of the republican candidates, including ted cruz, will sell out on amnesty. there's not a single republican candidate who won't old way to the corporations bidding and try to push it through. the only hope is to elect another democrats or the republicans will at least resist them the way they are resisting obama. that said, the only democrat i found attractive in the last, aside from obama in the last two cycles has been ed rendell. he took on the unions. he is relatively candid.

[booing] and the obvious has broad appeal. [laughter] >> here's a question. who is your pick for 2016? >> well, in response to something that you just said about -- by the way, right before, i think in 2000 election, you and i had an ongoing and vicious debate out over which one would be more enthusiastic about amnesty, mccain or obama. and i'll admit it's close indiana. obama is trying to do everything he can. it's not elected republicans. it's the american people who are stopping republicans. i think that's probably the best hope. because again what mickey kaus used to think everything was

about sex. i realize everything is about immigration. it determines every single other issue, and, of course, that's how we got to pick our presidential nominee. a little but no, that's why mitt romney was my favorite candidate. he was the most aggressive on immigration. and in a way that was very appealing, in the first day -- debate he won the best answers fy two weeks to write in it, for illegal in which join together in driver's license in-state tuition? have republicans on stage had already done that, and mitt romney said, no, i will appeal to hispanics the weight republicans always have. we are offering freedom and liberty and a chance at a better live for you and your children. and any hispanics are here for a handout are not voting for republicans anyway. it was a beautiful and perfect answer. made fun of deportation,

liberals an immediate have the capacity they can turn a phrase apple pie into, he said apple pie. but, of course, that's our solution to immigration. he can't let these fake polls on all, what most americans support the path to legalization. that's because i look up everyone of these polls and the question is always do you want, you have this minor question, too often, do what you round up illegal immigrants at gunpoint, put them on buses, send them home ripping children from grandmothers? or would you like to put them like to put them on a path to a position where they have to learn english and take lessons in patriotism and pay back taxes, of which there are none, they would getting money back during the earned income tax credit. but look, there is no politician in washington who suggesting rounding anybody up. we didn't round them up to get

to me. will not round them up to get them on. we just enforce e-verify. when the jobs dry up and oh, say, college tuition subsidized by we found out this wicked joe wilson was right. obama was line. he has now announced -- is announced to illegal aliens what -- this will not be used to deport you.

i think the only way to get republicans, other than romney, republicans ran for president, it's the damnedest thing with republicans, like invasion of the body snatchers, he is so good on national defense, wants to give the democrats 30 million new voters. i think it has to be pressure from americans. the reason americans often fall down on the job is you will not read anything about this in your local newspaper, in your time from in the "washington post," you will not see on television. that is one thing i will give the amnesty and mass immigration proponents. they know, let's not talk about it. let's do it all hush-hush and try to slip it through. the more people know, the truth about immigration marco rubio's bill by the way triples legal immigrants, most americans do not favor a path to legalization. when you hit them going on and on about the children, the children. the children under the dream act include young men who snuck

across at age 17. some of them are in their 30s now. overwhelmingly, throughout history, throughout the world most immigrants are young males. they will send for the families later. this nonsense about families being broken up and the children. it's not busy people crossing the border illegally in the back of trucks, pico de gallo, hiding in barrels, running from the border guard. it's not like they did know what they're doing was wrong. everyone acts like they stumbled into the country. oh, gosh, i didn't know that was illegal. >> that's what it was a disappointing for me to read on november 15, 2013, where romney in an interview with -- endorses the path decision should and legalization. i tell you, everybody on your site will sell out on amnesty except for jeff sessions. he is about the only one.

>> we are right about end of time. >> romney is going for his obituary. >> ninety seconds, best day for liberals and democrats in 2014. >> you just made it. spent we won't get amnesty. they will fix -- >> how do you win in 2014? spent we are not going to win. [applause] >> at this point with obamacare, it's like the iraq war, the fastest way out is to go through. the best path to certain is to get it done and then we can fiddle with the lead once it's up and running. and obama will not produce amnesty. at least he's the best chance of not producing amnesty if the republicans will stand up to them. they don't trust them. you were supposed to pay a fine

to qualify for the amnesty. obama will waive the fine. there will not be a fun. everybody knows that. so the best hope for those two big things is to vote for the democrats. >> why should americans vote republican? >> it's the only way to repeal obamacare. i keep hearing people say on tv, all, don't get in the way. it's falling on its own. nothing also its own. we have ultimately the heinous government programs. public education, the amtrak food service, the post office, the irs. nothing ever falls on its own. the only way to get rid of obamacare, and by the way, i am an individual out there. i'm part of the 1% that didn't get away for. wait until it comes to you, you will not be able to get an english-speaking doctor went to an american medical school, i mean unless you leave the country to find one. may be on an indian reservation.

that i think is going to be an argument and the only thing that is going to hurt it is, obviously i'm disappointed in republicans but don't think it matters more is immigration. immigration is forever. it is game over when that happens. every republican voted against obamacare. so there's no try to figure out if you can vote against obamacare. some are better than others. i don't like hearing them say will keep the good parts of obamacare. what is that? but amnesty is forever. i think you've got to vote for the republicans one more time and just make it clear. but if you pass amnesty that's it. it's over. then we organized the death squad for the people who racked america. >> thank you. thank you. give a round for mickey kaus and and culture. >> thank you. ♪

♪ >> another session of this past weekend cpac conference of them russian intervention in ukraine. a panel discussed russian president putin's goals and strategies. the u.s. response and influence in the region. and the future of ukraine and its crimean region. former undersecretary of state paula dobriansky moderated this 25 minute forum. >> good afternoon here good afternoon, everyone. we're going to spend some time focusing on the crisis in ukraine and i want to take a minute and just give you a little bit of context to what's happening. let's go back last year. in november of last year, then president yanukovych turndown opportunity to become associated with the european union. that association would have resulted in economic reforms and

political change in ukraine. ukraine is in dire economic straits. and those changes could make a real difference in its way forward. as a result of his unwillingness to a sign that association, attest, massive protests, broke out on the streets in kiev and throughout ukraine. people were protesting them put their lives on the line, one, because they want to become associated with the west, with the european union. and secondly they were also protesting against corruption. because corruption has played and set ukraine back. fast-forward, february of this year, three diplomats from europe went to ukraine to try to broker a peace between the opposition and those demonstrating on the street, and with then president yanukovych. ya the polish foreign minister, you had the french and german

foreign minister, and also by the way, the russian ambassador was there on the scene. an agreement was concluded, and that agreement was signed by then-president yanukovych. the agreement called for a change in the constitution, an agreement to go forward with economic reforms, and that it would be new presidential elections to be held before december, at the end of 2014, and there were other terms that were established between the opposition and then president yanukovych. it was signed by president yanukovych and those three diplomats. ambassador did not sign. what happened in was in the news. president yanukovych disappear. he ended up in moscow. then the next thing we saw was that there was a russian

aggression into crimea. this comes at such a crucial time. ukraine is politically gripped and economically in very dire straits. what will this mean for the united states, for the west, for ukraine, for the globe at large? we have a great panel, and i want to invite them to come out and join. we have clifford may who is the president of the foundation for the defense of democracy, and he's also a foreign affairs contributor to the "washington times." [applause] and we also have paul saunders whose executive director of the center for the national interest, and also associate publisher of the magazine the national interest. so we are going to hear more about the crisis in ukraine. thank you. [applause] >> gentlemen, let me go to you

immediately. with that backdrop the question on everyone's mind, first and foremost, is why? why did president putin support and advance this aggression into crimea? which flies in the face of international legal agreements, including the osct and the budapest memorandum which the u.s. and uk and russia signed when ukraine give up its nuclear weapons and the agreement was the protection of ukraine's sovereignty. >> if i had to boil it down to one reason, and i'm speaking here from a russian perspective in trying to explain their thinking rather than from my own point of view as an american, but to boil it down to one reason, i think russia has been quite frustrated over the last 20 years by the way that europe has developed. many russians feel that russia

doesn't have the kind of role in europe and in european security that they like. and they are especially concerned about the fate of ukraine, which has very close to historical, cultural and other ties to russia. i think what you see here is essentially president putin trying to tell the united states and western europe, you can't decide the future of ukraine unilaterally. you need to consult -- >> but there are measures you can choose which are, conform with international norms. this flies in the face of it. >> i'm going to disagree and take a harder line. the basic recent putin did this is because he can. couldn't look back at history and in is that under the stars, russia at a nearby. under the common source, russia had in empire. under putin of russia will have empire and it must are in the ukraine. that's how he looks at it. sarah palin was a recently,

earlier today. i want to give her a problem because it turns out she could see russia clearly from her house. [laughter] [applause] >> she also so i think vladimir putin clearly more clearly than the two american presidents. president bush looked into famously looked into putin's eyes and saw in his soul something akin to thomas jefferson akin to thomas jefferson when he should in something akin to ivan the terrible or catherine the great. then we had to reset with russia which assumed what was in your question that russia wants to live by international norms, that russia wants to abide by international law, that vladimir putin is an aspiring democrat when, in fact, he is a very convinced autocrat who thinks that the way we try to govern the world, this idea of an international community, it's very silly and he will take advantage of that. in 2008 he chopped off a piece of georgia. if you listen to condi rice she -- they also would've undermined

the comment i was in georgia but they serve a chopped off a part time and now they will chop off a lease the crimea from ukraine. >> let me ask you this. why, why is that although this this matter to the united states and to the west? should we care about what's happening? teleflex. >> we better care because putin, one thing doing right now is decide what else is going to do next. this is not the extent of his ambition. if we don't want to see a crisis next and latte, lithuania, perhaps and paula, other parts of eastern europe, we better think about whether we're going to send a strong message of her own or whether a weak message. he's not the only tyrant in the world was looking at this important lessons as well. among those lessons, under the budapest memorandum you mentioned, yes, the ukraine's territorial integrity was guaranteed in exchange for which ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. to leave me, the suit -- the

supreme leader, you don't give up your nuclear weapons the matter what the western diplomats say about the interest of the international community to we are not in that committee picked it's going to be a lot more powerful. >> i have to agree complete with you. it underlined the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and you actually have iran watching this situation very, very closely. as is in asia countries like japan also watching. >> and china which is throwing its weight around asia as well right now and knows that it has fecklessness in washington and europe. >> paul, do you want to jump in? >> i guess i would say a couple of things. certainly i agree very much that it does matter. there's no question that it matters. we are really talking here about the future of europe. and beyond that, about the future of the international system here i would differ a little bit with cliff on the question of russia doing this because it can. there are a lot of things that russia can do that it doesn't

do. russia could be sending missiles to iran. at this point it's not. russia is actually defending and iranian lawsuit because they signed a contract to deliver those missiles, and then at the request of the united states, they didn't. they also decided they wanted to keep the money, which did not please the iranians too much. they certainly have the option to deliver those missiles. the iranians, i'm sure, would be quite pleased with that. russia is not doing that. so i think we need, what russia has done is entirely inappropriate. it violates international norms. it violates a lot of agreements, but the question of russia doing things because it can, i think that's not a helpful way to

think about it. >> let's talk about the united states, the west, looking at options as to how we can have potential influence. first, the question is, do we have influence on the situation, on this crisis? secondly, if we do, what do you use? are their political estimates, economic instruments? do we use sanctions? are there other options on the table? >> i think it's true that putin has most of the high card, particularly when it comes to crimea. there's every indication he is taking crimea back into russia and we're not going to be able to stop it. he is probably considering whether to take parts of eastern ukraine along with it or not. and how he is going to treat western ukraine. i think you can have an impact on that and thinking further down the road. my view of it is this, that we shouldn't be taking steps simply to punish russia. rather, this is a good occasion for us to take steps to strengthen america which was in the most important message and

perhaps stop them from going further. so first we do not begin to bring, to take a peace dividend and bring our military down to pre-world war ii levels. we don't do that. bad idea. very bad idea. now is not a time delay of soldiersoldier so we can hire ms officials. this is not what we want to be doing. secondly i was the president obama has said just a few years ago i guess that is going to have and all-of-the-above energy policy. hasn't happened. we should be utilizing every source of energy we possibly can. keystone pipeline from canada, encouraging entrepreneurship, all of our guests and making sure that our energy supplies are abundant and diverse and again i would say to export as well to europe, begin to reduce the dependence europe and the house on russia. eastern europe in particular. a third thing -- you may agree with me. i'm happy spitted i think we're all in agreement. >> here's something more

radical. the g7 and 56 and the g7 was expanded to the g8 and rush was included. it never belonged. it is not productive enough. it is not a democracy. let's i think russia should not be in the g8 franca. i think we should be discussing that and i think we should begin to turn the club into an association of democracies and not pretend that those who join will become democracies if they are rewarded in advance. >> what about the wto, the world trade organization. there have been those of single out the wto said the because russia has used influence, economic instruments to strengthen the ukraine. even prior to this aggression. what about the wto, is that on your list? >> it is less on my list. it bolsters american leadership, economic power, military power, diplomatic power in the world. i think united states has to shoulder the burdens of

leadership, and because there was nobody else who can do it, the international committee is not going to do. putin will take the job. >> let's see if paul agrees. >> i certainly agree on the military but i certainly agree on american energy. i think those are two critical areas. on the g8, we can decide in this room that that's something that we want to do. there are six other countries that are. many of them in europe. you it's about $120 billion from exports to russia. europe has about 180, $200 billion in foreign the best investment in russia. so whether governments are prepared to agree to that, i'm not sure. the foreign minister of france said a couple days ago they are not yet prepared to consider

canceling the sale of two helicopter carriers to the russian navy. so i think we're getting a little bit out in front of the europeans on that issue spend what about freezing assets? freezing the assets of those russians who are complicit in these actions. >> freezing assets i think, frankly, is a little bit of a comical idea on the part of the administration. the united states congress already passed 15 months ago the magnus key act which gave the u.s. government -- magnus key act, the ability to do that. so what don't tension self-respecting russian after 15 months would still have significant assets in the united states? and earlier this week, the administration when they announced that they would extend

of the authority to this issue, vix beausoleil said, well, we have created this authority but we are not naming any specific people at this point. there have already been three days for anybody who didn't take the assets out in the last 15 months to get to work on that. and imagine a number of them called their bankers fairly quickly. i don't consider that to be a credible policy. i think were i would look and it extends a look at some of the things that clip was saying, let's talk about your. our european allies and partners are trying to develop some of them their own energy resources. i certainly think the united states should get behind that. there's some american companies exploring for shale gas in western ukraine. that could make a huge difference in terms of ukraine's energy dependence on russia, and i think that's a certain

something that should be supported. we also need to think out of this situation, and i'm sure we'll hear from a number of our allies about it, about the disposition of our forces in europe, and that's something we've got to consider very carefully. >> let me ask both of you, the foreign minister of sweden tweeted just this morning that the osha, helsinki mongers try to get in into crimea -- oecd, and they were not able to cross in to actually verify allegations going on. the statements made that the russians and russian speaking ukrainians, that their lives are in jeopardy. they sent monitors but they couldn't get in the first question is, he tweeted that and he said instead that there's a movement of russian troops in the area. what does that portend? no monitors, troop movement, where is this going? >> let's first understand its

more than a violation of international norms. when you send troops into a foreign country, even if they're not -- especially when they're not wearing proper insignia, that is a violation of the most basic international law. that's an aggression, no question. >> do you see this going further? >> look, it is possible that putin is exactly what he's going to do tomorrow, the next and the day after. it's possible he is waiting to see and judge the reaction and then he will decide. what i don't know again is whether or not he thinks i would like to have eastern ukraine as part of my sphere of influence or part of russia proper, or could be again like status is murky but for what he thinks it's better not to have that and simply let the government of ukraine know that no distance should be taken that this pleases them. the are another possibility looking at and it's hard to fathom his strategy exactly. if you were to cut eastern

ukraine, which is the more productive and industrial as part from western ukraine, he could leave the western ukraine as a ward of the european union for a very long time. so the european union and america would pour money in, spend in russia it would be a basket case of country, kind of like moldova. he might be considering today. i don't know if he is made a decision. i think it is at least possible to begin to shape his decisions going forward as he sees whether we are feckless or whether we're determined in regard to what is done so far. i think crime is probably realistically american diplomats shouldn't say that, he probably wants that everything he does. >> do we anticipate that this aggression is going to go further and split ukraine? >> well, you know, we have eight days until the referendum in crimea. if we had in this country and effective administration, i

think eight days actually would be enough time to try to work with moscow and with others to point in crimea in the direction of much greater autonomy, somewhat like what it had under ukraine's 1992 constitution when ukraine had much greater -- unser, when crimea had much greater autonomy and it has now. with the leadership that we currently have, i think that it's very unlikely that that heavy lift will be accomplished in eight days. when we look at eastern ukraine and compare it to crimea, you know, crimea is roughly the size of the state of maryland, geographically. there are about 2 million people there, so the population density is not too high. eastern ukraine is a totally different situation.

sending the russian military into eastern ukraine come into major urban centers, where the population is divided and in many cases more divided than in crimea, that could potentially be very costly. it's certainly a very different kind of decision and sending the russian military into crimea which, you know, certainly was part of the russian empire and the russian republic of the soviet union, intel 1954. it's just a different situation. and putin may well come to the point. i think that cliff is correct in suggesting that he probably has not decided, i think for the russian leadership, that would be a much tougher decision than the decision to go into crimea.

>> i think there are a lot of variables that are hard to predict with confidence. the outcome of the referendum is not among the. we know what's going to happen. not least because 60% of the population of ukraine does identify as russian rather than ukraine. and also because it's long been a place where retired russian military officers retire. it's sort of like colorado springs on the black sea, if you will. there's also the basic a stalinist rule that who vote doesn't count, who counts the votes counts. i think we know how the referendum will come out. so that's the most predictable part of the. the rest seems to me open to different outcomes. >> is worth the audience don't have been quite a few polls taken in ukraine itself. and by the way, for both east and west, the numbers come out higher in a variety of polls when ukrainians, both russian speaking screams and ukrainian speaking ukrainians, and

russian, ethnic russians living in ukraine when they've been asked do you want to be associated with the east or the west, always the west has come out ahead. gentlemen, let me ask you, is this a new cold war? is that what we are witnessing? how would you describe this? >> i don't think it has to be. i think that that is one possible outcome, and i think we need to be very careful moving forward in how we are thinking about this situation. there it is one school of thought, which is that we need to isolate russia. and that that's the answer to this problem. the challenge that we have in the world today, that it's the world today. it's 2014, it's not 1990. it's not 1980. so isolating russia is not

really something that the united states can do unilaterally. i mentioned the point about europe-russia economic relations, but there's also china out there. even if we were to succeed in bringing our european allies along with us on a strategy of isolating russia, isolating russia in my view basically pushes russia into far closer alignment with china than it is in now. you start to see again major russian arms sales to china. and do we start to see russian support for china's territorial claims? then we have a new cold war and potentially a very dangerous one. >> i don't think revenue cold war. what i hope we have is a time when we take off the rose-colored glasses and understand who it is we're actually dealing with.

the obama administration in particular has been more solicitous of our enemies and adversaries than of our allies. we have had a misguided view of putin, a misguided view of iran and the site institute, a misguided view of a lot of people around the world. we do not have this wonderful international temerity with shared values in which we should be in a one among many equals and that we need to do is remind people that they should be on the right side of history. they don't want to be 19th century. they want to be 21st century and some other will come along to our way of thinking. we have enemies, those are different you put interest that we do, different values. if we recognize that we conform policies that can be protective and defensive of the free peoples of the world and expand the true freedom in the world. >> one last question. we have like 30 seconds. which way is ukraine going to go? >> i think ukraine is going to be split one way or another. >> split, that's what -- >> if crimea stays in russian

hands, it is split. beyond that, how much putin tries and -- we will see. >> crimea i think is probably lost. but i think the loss of crimea drives the rest of ukraine much more firmly toward the west over time. we need our european allies really to step up to the plate to help to make a habit. >> and we need to be there, too. gentlemen, thank you so much. please give them a hand. [applause] >> coming up next a look at the was relationship with israel and the influence of pro-israel lobbying groups on u.s. policy. and at 4:00 eastern the senate returns prepared of general speeches. followed by debate and proceed to vote on the use district court nomination. and they vote on legislation sponsored by senator mccaskill

dealing with sexual assault in the military. >> the institute for research middle eastern policy recently hosted a summit on relationship between the u.s. and israel. analyzing the impact of pro-israel groups on u.s. policy. the following panel look at how these groups have imposed political parties in the news media. the event was held at the national press club in washington, d.c. it's about one hour 15 minutes. >> thank you very much. the question i've been asked to address today is quote, are the israeli lobby gatekeepers and damage control squads on the left? speaking with 40 years of experience, the answer is clearly yes. some years ago historian and activist lenny brenner wrote

extensively about zionists not a clever addition, a taboo subject still over there, described the left as the rearguard of israel lobby. he was referring not just to be a bonus of the left and antiwar movement, to challenge or even speak about the lobby, but to the efforts of the leading factions all of them claim to be anti-zionist to isolate the palestinian struggle from protests against south african apartheid and u.s. intervention in central america in the '80s while israel was occupying lebanon and during the first, and not to talk about the role of israel in central america and supporting act african -- south africa and apartheid. 30 years later nothing has changed. the same factions are still in control. with washington also being israel occupied territory they have every base covered. little wonder why the palestine solidarity movement has not had the slightest impact on u.s.

policy since all the years it's been in existence. existence. steven greenhut examined state department archives dealing with israel u.s. relationship for his book on the subject taking sides, america's secret relations, concluded that after eisenhower quote israel and for individual america have become a broad outlines of u.s. policy in the region. it has the left to american presidents to implement that policy with varying degrees of enthusiasm and to do with tactical issues, end quote. there's a corollary conclusion. within the left in general and within the organized opposition to israel's crimes against the palestinians, and lebanese people, there is a similar limit. the parameters in which israel and its friends in america may be legitimately criticized without the critic and stigmatized by being called an anti-semite, have been adapted from misinformation concerning israel u.s. relations that has advanced over the years largely by lesser noam chomsky an

independent scientist and echoed by larger and most prominently institute for policy studies fellows dennis come to a large degree these parameters have been accepted without question by the left combined mainstream religious institutions and said he said by many palestinians in arab americans. they have been spread and, of course, by influential handful of jews activists who appears to play an important role behind the scenes, the jewish voice for peace and use committee to end the occupation, the two most prominent and well-financed groups did with israel-palestine conflict. on the opposition. indie media were jewish domination, this issue is observable is the late alexander cockburn wants it, democracy now! is andy goodman, a valuable a keeper for the american jewish establishment about which i will see more in a moment. given a time limit i'll focus on

two of the most important of what might be called the chomsky parameters. the first is his insistence that israel is backed by the u.s. because it is a strategic asset to america's cop on the beat in the middle east he has written. and it will not undertake any major action without the approval of the white house. this is simply wrong. it's also the u.s. according to chomsky, that has led israel rejecting an agreement with the palestinians and applying washington's opposition to israeli settlement is a ruse, another falsehood. his distortion of the facts on the ground became enshrined for the solitary movement in 1983 with a publication of his book, the fateful triangle, the training, israel and the palestinians. that an israeli shoulder has yet to shed a drop of blood on america's house and bush's father and son paid of israel to stay out of both gulf wars hasn't is what a chomsky or his

followers from adhering to that position. the result of this, from a political standpoint has been the left is a lot of members of congress to publicly support israel, particularly democrats, challenge if they're considered good on other issues. in the fateful triangle, chomsky didn't spare words ascribing atrocities committed by israel to in the 1982 war in lebanon, but in a clever bait and switch he plays the ultimate blame for those crimes not in israel but on the u.s. for providing the weapons to commit those crimes. the weaponry was provided according to congress not because of pressure on israel by a pack of because the regular session approved the invasion. a possible reason for chomsky placing his blame on washington and the winds of israel's critics inside and outside the jewish community is that the alternative is something a few

of them at least publicly will acknowledge. that those responsible for the plight of the palestinians with the zionist jews and their supporters around the world. who backed i know in her power carry out the ethnic cleansing of palestine in 1948 and the capture of the west bank in 1967. chomsky described, a favor to the united states. he has quickly said after 1948 when israel is cleared statehood it was as legitimate as any other state and should be recognized as such on the palestinians employing their being expelled and the destruction of 500 on state and coaches are something they should put behind them. most critics of israel, jews and non-jews, don't want to acknowledge jewish culpability because the notion of blaming the jews has an ugly to struggle presidents and they share the fear of provoking anti-semitism.

the altar protecting jewish sensibilities, the oppression of the palestinians continues as is a pax occupation of congress. downplaying the influence of visual lobby and determine u.s. middle east policies, it is second of chomsky's parameters that flows from the first. for him to lobby is just pushing through an open door. i don't write about the i don't talk about, he once wrote in explaining why he wouldn't debate the issue. the invasion of iraq was a major threat, particularly attention and the attention given to the actual book, israel lobbying which attribute the logic of the war to the lobby and punctured the left mantra that wasn't the war for oil. response of that book, the person the subject released by major publisher in more than two decades, the real guard rallies its forces, essentially linking arms with alan dershowitz to dispute and sullied the reputation. first on the attacked ironically was policy professor joseph

massad who have been targeted by a lobby group while teaching at columbia. columbia. his experience has barely taught him how to behave another lobby leaves him alone. accessible long attacks on the book followed. one by apologists and chomsky that professor stephenson is, another by jewish voice for peace michelle. any goodman's response took the prize for damage control. because an untouchable icon of the let it was an ever widening listening and doing audience. what she does and doesn't say about is of singular import rather than invite either professor to be just under program, to discuss the book, she brought in chomsky. it was no surprise he dismissed the. mission accomplished for both of them. the exclusion -- should be renamed damage control now is of

course an experience shared by most if not all of today's speaker. telling her viewers and speakers of the truth that israel-u.s. relations, the iraq war and develop to the war in iran is clearly clearly not on the goodman agenda. for chomsky to throw cold water on the book was in keeping with the tradition of enduring aipac. she never reports in the almost unanimous vote on sanctions legislation is israel's enemies that aipac drive for congress, nor on its annual policy conference is here in washington which are not insignificant events. even the public confrontation between obama and aipac over new sanctions has rated only a single headline on what she now attends every day is the war and peace report. what goodman also shares with chomsky and dennis is their silence and serving the network of pro-israel think tanks that dominate the washington beltway. we had to learn about the project of the new american century from the scottish morning herald years after

initiate a made up of predominant jewish neocons began promoting regime change is in iraq. today, we hear nary a word or its successors about any of his successors the foreign policy initiative and the foundation for defense of democracies which sprang into existence the day after 9/11, both of which all were dominated by jewish neocons. some of the very same ones. in 2011 during aipac policy conference, i asked an audience over 100 people who attended ostensibly and aipac event an hour earlier if they've heard of either one of these organizations. only one hand with the. how major have heard of the foreign policy initiative? not many. how about foundation for defense of democracies? not many. you wonder why not. then there's the washington institute for near east policy as resident experts have put onn a database about the times and other national media on middle

east issues and originally testified before congress on issues affecting issue. who aside from the present company knows the greatest by aipac in 1985 to do exactly what it is doing now? that it's funny director martin indyk and one of his leading spokesperson who were part of a john kerry to bridge differences for israeli and palestinians during the phony peace tax are now going on. that should be news. no, no. not at least for mainstream media nor for chomsky, jennifer goodman, nor for the followers nor for the left, nor for the powers that managed to fool. it a the our fate, colin powell blamed the war on iraq unquote -- the jewish institute for national security affairs. how many readers of this book of ever heard of it. how many people outside of this room that have been around since 1976 and a dick cheney, jeanne kirkpatrick, paul wolfowitz and former cia chief had been among

its membership. no? no. not for our damage control for those who worship them. one may argue that they know their audience can only say what the audience wants to do. the role of the gatekeepers is to keep it that way. in 1991, speaking at berkeley, chomsky was asked by an iraqi american in the audience about the role of the israel lobby in pushing george bush senior to attack iraq in 1991. there was a loud applause, chomsky said the lobby played no role. it wasn't true. but it was what they wanted to hear. chomsky's fateful triangle was polemic designed to prove to supporting israel has been high on the agenda of every u.s. president that followed eisenhower. when it has to, they simply ignore. that's why there's no mention of kennedy in his book. can be strongly opposed and was last president to do so. he also supported the palestinian right of return and

wanted to implement to some degree in the time of his murder his justice department under brother bobby was engaged in a serious effort to get the american zionist council, with the creation of the jewish agency to register foreign agents became aipac. all these positions were redlined as far as individual concerned. why didn't i chomsky mentioned them in his book or mention them since? what also didn't mention gerald ford delaying a major weapons ship additional in 1975? or six months when it refused to disengage from sinai land, and ford's concurrent threats to call in israel to return the 67 borders which aipac was able to stymie. later he tells readers that george bush senior who went on national tv to block israel's request for tender and in loan guarantees and didn't -- when vice president want to say judicial both after bombing iraq the reactor and after invading

lebanon, that he was pro-israel. chomsky said he was pro israel, israelis would find it very ironic but as medevac -- i believe he's a circle errors and omissions on chomsky's part are not accidental any more than those of goodman or dennis the quick answer them with the truth, this conference is a way to begin. thank you very much. [applause] >> next up is allen brownfeld, he is a syndicated columnist and editor of the quarterly journal of the american council for judaism. [applause] >> thank you. it's a great pleasure to be here and to meet many of my longtime

readers in the washington report on middl middle east affairs, oh i've been associated, it seems like for decades. now, we all know that zionism has distorted american policy in the middle east. at the same time it has had a terribly negative impact upon jewish life in the united states and throughout the world. and it is important to remember that historically, zionism was a minority view within judaism, particularly in america. the organization whose journal i edit, the american council for judaism, was established in 1942, and it was established

primarily because the established jewish organization, which had previously opposed the concept of jewish nationalism, had changed course. so the council was organized to maintain this older view, that first judaism is a religion, not a nationality, that american jews are american by nationality, and jews by religion. just as other people are protestant, catholic, or muslim. this was the view maintained by the vast majority of american jews all through history. in my opinion, it's the view of the silent majority today. ..

>> this city is our jerusalem. this house of god is our temple. in 1885 when the union of american hebrew congregations was established in pittsburgh, rabbi isaac mayer wise, the leading reform rabbi of the

time, was instrumental in writing what was called the pittsburgh platform. in it he declared we consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community. and, therefore, expect neither a return to palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of aaron nor the restoration of any laws concerning the jewish state. one of the leading jewish theologians of the 20th century, abraham joshua heshel, said judaism is not a religion of space and does not worship the soil. so, too, the state of israel is not the climax of jewish history, but a test of integrity of the jewish people and the

competence of judaism. and in 1929 a respected orthodox rabbi, aaron samuel tamarat wrote that the very notion of a sovereign jewish state as a spiritual center was a con rah duction -- contradiction to judaism's ultimate purpose. he wrote: judaism is not some religious concentration that can be localized or situateed in a single territory. neither is judaism a nationality in is sense of modern nationalism fit to be woven into the threefoldedness of homeland, army and he row you can songs. -- heroic songs. no, judaism is torah, ethics, an exaltation of the spirit. if judaism is truly torah, then

it cannot be reduced to the con phones of -- confines of any particular territory. for as scripture said of torah, its measure is greater than the earth. it is my opinion that what has happened to american judaism has completely corrupted its religious nature. what we are witnessing today, synagogues flying israeli flags, programs urging american jews to 'em date to -- emigrate to israel, their real homeland, is a form of idolatry making the sovereign state of israel the object of worship rather than god. in 1999 the union for reform judaism adopted a resolution saying israel is central to our

religion. israel, not god. and one of the prominent zionists, professor ruth weiss of harvard university, said at one time i would rather surround myself with jews who loved israel and didn't believe in god at all than with those who believed in god and did not love israel. it is also my view that zionism is a sub subversive enterprise. what would we as more thans think of -- as americans think of any religious institution in our society that flew a foreign flag in its houses of worship, that told young americans that this is not really their homeland, that someplace else is their homeland and that the highest form of their religious expression is to emigrate to that country?

now, i doubt that very many american jews believe any of that. very few american jews are emigrating to israel. yet their religious institutions manifest that sensibility. if you read the jewish press whether the forward or the washington jewish week or local jewish papers in los angeles or cleveland, you get the feeling that you are reading the papers of an ex-patriot community. it's as if you were reading the papers of recent immigrants from el salvador who were reading about the daily events in their home country and were being urged to return. now, there have been many distortions in american jewish life. consider the hypocrisy of

american jewish organizations which have gone to court to remove voluntary school prayer from our schools, remove christmas trees from our schools yet support a theocracy in israel where there is no separation of church and state. the israel calls itself a i jewish state -- itself a jewish state, yet nonorthodox jews have fewer rights in israel than any place in the western world. reformed rabbis have no right to perform weddings or funerals, conversions by reformed rabbis are not recognized. israel is not a free society with regard to religion. the question then arises, american jewish organizations which dedicated themselves with such fervor to a strict separation of church and state

seem not really to believe in separation of church and state when jews are a majority. it's interesting that when thomas jefferson and james madison wrote the virginia declaration of religious freedom, they were not members of a persecuted minority, they were people who believed in religious freedom. one wonders if the american jewish establishment shares that belief. consider how israel has infiltrated american jewish life to the extent when resolutions were proposed in congress to recognize the armenian genocide by turkey, jewish organizations led the crusade to remove that legislation and defeat it because israel at that time was allied with turkey. i suspect if the same resolution came up today, these organizations might take a

different, different position. [laughter] in israel itself there is a government of racism -- a growth of racism, there is a growth of religious extremism. the book, "the king's torah," was a best seller. this is a book that said jews and non-jews are basically different in nature. jews are much closer or to god than non-jews who are referred to as uncompassionate. the ten commandments, thou shalt not kill, according to this book written by orthodox rabbis who are financed by the israeli government, this book says that thou shalt not kill refers only to one jew killing another. not killing non-jews. in fact, it discusses the

circumstances under which it is all right to kill non-jewish children. religious extremism of the highest order. rabbis have made proclamations telling jews in israel not to rent homes, apartments to non-jews. we understand there's religious extremism in many parts of the world. my point is why don't american jews say a word about this? not a word of criticism of the racism and extremism growing in israel. it has distorted jewish values, it has distorted american jewish life. now, i'm not a pessimist, because as i said earlier, i believe that the position i

represent represents a silent majority of american jews. not those who are members of aipac or the american jewish committee, but the vast majority of american jews believe they are americans, believe that judaism is their religion, do not believe that israel is their homeland. zionism is in retreat, in my opinion, within the jewish community. we've seen a number of events. hill el foundations in various parts of the country are rejecting the guidelines set down by the foundation officially, and eric fingerhut, the former congressman from ohio who is now the head of hill el, said according to our guidelines no anti-zionists will be permitted to speak at the foundations.

mr. fingerhut must not be aware of the long tradition of jewish opposition to zionism that i have just recited. and do you know this is nothing new among the established jewish community? when napoleon with invaded russia -- when napoleon invaded russia and was bringing religious freedom to russia, napoleon tore down the ghetto walls all over europe, but the rabbis in russia supported the czar and opposed napoleon. because if the ghetto walls were torn down and religious freedom came to russia, the authority of the rabbis would be eliminated. so among young people there's a great belief in freedom of speech, in freedom of debate and a desire that moral values, treatmenting each individual with -- treating each individual with human dignity, be applied

everywhere. in palestine as well as in israel as well as in our own country. so i think zionism within the jewish community is in retreat, and time will tell whether i'm right. thank you very much. [applause] >> all right. our next speaker is justin romando to, the editorial director of antiwar.com. he also writes for the conservative magazine, and he's the author of the book "reclaiming the american right: the lost legacy of conservative movement." [applause] >> my topic today is israel and the american conservative movement, a history. and as is the case in so many other way, the conservative movement's position on the state of israel isn't what it used to

be. just as what we call the old right, the re-buckley right -- pre-buckley right was anti-interventionist and good on civil liberties, so the conservatives of the 1940s and 1950s were hostile to israel and sympathetic to the arabs, believe it or not. a good example of this is revealed in a letter from the neoconservative guru leo strauss to the editors of national review magazine. he was objecting to an article in the november 17, 1956, issue of the magazine that contained the following sentence. quote: even the jews themselves the victims of the most notorious racial discrimination in modern times did not hesitate to create the first racist state in modern history, end quote. now, this is coming from

national review magazine in 1956. so things have changed. it is unimaginable that such a sentence would ever find its way into the national review of rich lowry, the current editor, because mr. lowry represents a movement that has been thoroughly co-opted and corrupted by, first, the cold war and, secondly, by our endless war on terror itch. terrorism. the conservative movement of the 1940s and '50s openly challenged the entire conception of a jewish state. this argument was made in several books published by the very first conservative book publisher in america, henry regnery, who issued a whole series of books reporting on the dispossession of the palestinian people and calling into question the whole zionist project. for example, there was -- i can't pronounce this -- his

deep's the arab world published in 1943 and noted by the reviewing service as follows: the writer is also, if perhaps naturally, violently against the creation of a state of israel which she feels was prompted more by international power politics than by humanitarian principles and represents an american and british threat to the arab world, unquote. regnery also put out frieda utley's will the middle east go west which expressed a viewpoint just as fresh today as it was back in 1957. quote: freedom and justice for israel, she wrote, depends on freedom and justice for the arabs. that same year regnery put out another book, this time a book