house i believe unanimously. i hope that congress passes a and the president signs it there are a number of other process forms and we can do as well. getting more to the logistics, i think there has to be an openness to accommodating minority commissioners to have well-founded substantive views that do not alter the core of the preferred proposal. the example i consistently give is even the rate. very up front but the plan i had to modernize the systems i understand the chairman did not like that plan, but working within his framework i said, look, here are number of different changes. i'm not crazy, but i be willing to adopt them. at the 11th hour i was told literally the tuesday before the vote on friday and losing that process over and over again, the incentive option i made 12

suggestions. one of them fundamentally altered the core of that document. wwor they were trying to grapple with how the dynamic works and how does the structure play out.

those are complicated issues for people to understand. it's one thing to turn around comments on am radio as much as we love it. for something like dynamic reserve pricing to understand how it works and affects your ability is something terribly different. the only thing i have to conclude when i see something like that happen with the comment deadlines is the fact that the proposal is being made by republican and if you look at my track record under acting chairwoman clyburn there are any number of areas where even though i didn't agree with the overall framework and nonetheless agreed to adopt it and work within it to prove the document. i like chairman wheeler and i get along with him personally and i hope we have a collaborative spirit going forward that but to this point by and large we were shut out on matters of significance.

>> my colleague has completed things we can do by ourselves internally and things that will require congressional changes to the statue. they are things that i have their ideas that i've raised so far that i wish you were getting better attention internally and that is something that congress is going to look at. cost-benefit analysis is woefully done in this institution and i've highlighted a number of items. it's a very matter-of-fact thing but we put into an item on regulatory flexibility analysis and those are things that i wish we would improve ourselves but if we don't i think both items congress will tackle. >> going back to the probate item did you make any specific

suggestions that were taken are disregarded? i know it was more for the commission granting petitions but of course you guys were not for the overall granting over some states. >> for me the question was a very simple legal one. does the fcc have the power of the constitution and the laws to preempt the state laws at issue? having answered that question for myself and the negative there wasn't really a way to reach a consensus on that issue. i believe based on my reading of the statues and questions and the precedence interpreting preemption that the fcc didn't have the power to do what it did so we never got to the point of making substantive suggestions. >> i made public my objections to the scope of this item long

ago. there's a blog item on my webpage that highlights the activities that i think are reasonable that we are for running today and the one thing the commission could have done but doesn't seem willing to do is focus on the petitions filed before us. i asked him those questions. do you have a problem with this and this and all the different components and their like we are okay with all those. we really want to deal with the territorial. i agree with my colleague i don't think we have the authority to help you there. i'm sorry, it's not my ability to change that scenario. that's something that congress can do are the states and they are trying to get something moving through the states and didn't have much success. >> u.n. commissioner pai don't agree on a lot that you agree. [inaudible] [laughter] >> i would say since my team is not done well and probably may

not do well in the future probably don't have a lot. [inaudible conversations]

monday samantha power u.s. ambassador to the united nations spoke before the american israel public affairs committee on the u.s. relationship with israel. here's a look. >> we believe firmly that israel's security in the u.s. partnership transcends politics and we always will. [applause] [applause]

[applause] that is a very important statement you all have made. it was the same bond that led president truman to make the united states the first country to recognize israel 11 minutes after it declared its existence in 1948. [applause] and it is why we have stood by israel side every minute since. our commitments to our partnership with israel are a bedrock commitment rooted in shared fundamental values cemented through decades of bipartisan reinforcement. this partnership should never be politicized and it cannot and will not be tarnished or broken. [applause] now debating the most effective policy both within our

respective democracies and among partners is more than useful. it is a necessary part of a rising at informed decisions. politicizing that process is not. the stakes are too high for that. [applause] on policy, the negotiations that we and our partners have entered into with iran negotiations aimed centrally at denying iran and nuclear weapons have generated reasonable debate. my colleague and dear friend national security adviser susan rice will speak in depth about iran later tonight. but i'm struck that when i read about alleged policy difference on the iran nuclear negotiations i rarely see mentioned of the foundational strategic agreement between the united states and israel an agreement that undergirds her entire engagement with iran. united states of america will not allow iran to obtain a nuclear weapon period.

[applause] >> you would see what we used to call when i was a kid a mutt and jeff combination or a stickball set. washington was a large man 6 feet very robust and a terrific natural athlete. and madison is a skinny little guy.

>> the gift that i write most about is his ability to form remarkable partnerships with the great people of his era but it also alludes to is get to the country, of his talents and what he was able to do to help create the first self-sustaining constitutional republic. [applause] next from the conservative political action conference annual meeting remarks by former texas governor rick perry. governor perry is among the group of potential 2016 presidential candidates that spoke at the event. this is 15 minutes.

>> i come here today to speak plainly about the times that we live in. at no time, at no time in the last 25 years as the future been more uncertain and the world more dangerous than it is today. on three points we must be clear. first, our country has entered a time of testing and our political leadership is failing the test. the american people see a president who bows to political correctness in denial of the threats that we face making grave maquette -- miscalculations that make the world less safe. this administration's incompetence in iraq and syria allow the emergence of isis. they are using american tanks and they are using american weapons and isis began taking cities that just a few years ago were secure by american blood.

let's be very very clear about who isis is what they represent. they are a religious movement that seeks to take the world back to the seventh century. their aims are apocalyptic. they mean to cleanse the world not just of christians and jewish but muslims who disagree with their extreme ideology and it is their stated vow to kill as many americans as possible. it's time, it is time for the american people to hear the truth. [applause] the president declared in the state of the union that the advance of isis has been stopped and that is simply not true. [applause] he says that isis is a religious

group. again, he is simply wrong. to deny the fundamental religious nature of the threat and to downplay the seriousness of it is naïve, it is dangerous and it is misguided. isis represents the worst threat to freedom since communism. if egypt and jordan recognized that they are at war with radical islam is next time our president proclaimed the same? [applause] we didn't start this war nor did we choose it but we will have the will to finish it. [applause] and let me state another obvious fact about the middle east. it is not in the interest of peace and security of the free world that iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

reports concerning this bilateral negotiation between the united states and iran indicate a deal on the table would allow iran to develop nuclear power after a certain number of years if they live up to certain treaty obligations. i believe it is fundamentally dangerous to grant iran's nuclear ambitions diplomatic cover. our discussions with iran should be governed by two nonnegotiable principles. number one is iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons period. [applause] and never two israel has the right to exist as a jewish state. [applause] amen. it is time.

it is time wasted with the most vibrant democracy in the middle east. the administration's policy of isolating israel must stop. watching all of this unfold is the president of russia. he has been watching as our president gerrer a red line in syria that was cost without consequence. and then this russian president watch as our president canceled plans to deploy missile systems in poland and the czech republic. it was against this backdrop of weakness and empty words that putin annexed crimea and entered ukraine. it was those conditions that allowed him to negotiate a one-sided cease-fire with no real consequences. here is the simple truth about our foreign policy.

our allies and our adversaries are too willing to test us. no one should be surprised. no one should be surprised that dictators like assad would cross the presidents red line because he knows the president won't send the line that separates our our -- with mexico. there aren't any real consequences. there are no real consequences when dictators in adversaries defy america and this must change. [applause] for their world to be safer america must be stronger and for america to be safer our border must be secured. [applause] drug cartels, transnational gangs smuggle drugs, weapons and people.

they are a clear and present danger to the health and safety of all americans. in a conversation, and a conversation about comprehensive immigration reform must begin with comprehensive border security. [applause] and that's exactly why. that's why told the president looked him right in the eye and i said if you will not secure the border between texas and mexico, texas will. [applause] so here is the second and i want to be very clear today. the conservative movement must be a great agent of reform. to lead this country we must offer a vision of change. our nation is $18 trillion in debt.

so every agency of government, every department out there they must account for every dime that they spend. for the first time in american history a generation of leaders is on the verge of breaking the social compact with the next generation and that is to leave a better country and with greater opportunity than the way we found it. with debt the size of our gdp our nation is involved with generational fast. [applause] there are fewer of us that believe in the american dream than any time in the last 20 years for middle-class americans. opportunity and security has been replaced with anxiety and worry. out-of-pocket health care costs housing, college tuition. they have all gone up faster than wages. student debt is at an all-time

high and this has to change. [applause] it is time it is time to restore hope and opportunity to the middle-class americans out there and we can start with our tax code. we have got the highest corporate tax rate in the western world and it is time to lower that corporate tax rate to lift up middle-class wages. we can do this. it is time to provide easier access to credit for small businesses. these lending reforms are squeezing our community banks and small businesses. it is time to bring jobs and prosperity to main street not just wall street. [applause] it's time to stop this over regulation by runaway federal agencies. do you realize the regulatory costs this regulatory cost hits

american families for about $15,000 a year. that's the highest cost on your budget then anything other than housing. it's no surprise though. it's no surprise that when one out of five american children are -- because one out of 10 american workers are unemployed underemployed or so discouraged they have quit looking for work. and i want to say this quite plainly. the unemployment rate is a sham. it leaves millions of american workers uncounted. if the republican party doesn't take a stand for these uncounted americans, who will? [applause] the answer is not to expand the welfare state. it's to build the freedom state

and i happen to know what can happen because we did it in my home state. [applause] our formula was simple. you controlled the taxes and spending, provides smart regulations. you develop an educated workforce and you stop lawsuit abuse at the courthouse. [applause] in my 14 years as governor we helped to create almost one third of all the private-sector jobs in america. in the last seven years in the last seven years we created 1.4 million jobs. you take those jobs out of the equation minus those jobs created in texas this country lost a quarter of a million jobs jobs. it's time to bring economic revival to every state in america with policies that limit

government instead of expanding it. and here's the third . i have never been more certain than i am today that america's best days remain in front of us. the weakness and incompetence of our government shouldn't be confused with the strength, the ingenuity and the idealism of the american people. our experiment in republican form of government is too durable to be sidetracked by one confused administration. if you think about it we have survived worse. we had a civil war in this country. we had two world wars. we had a great depression. we even survived jimmy carter. we will survive the obama years too. [applause]

there is nothing wrong with an america that cannot be fixed with new leadership. i see an america was skilled workers get jobs where wages are on the rise in america where opportunity is the birthright of all not dispensed by the government to a few select ones. it is time for america to lead the world. it's time to stand with our allies. it's time to pursue an america worthy of our founders ideas. it's time we build an america where citizens and their children can dream again. so let's roll up our sleeves let's go to work and let revived this great nation again. god bless you. thank you for being with us here today. [applause]

[applause] governor perry we have a few questions for you if you don't mind. it's a pleasure to have you here. it was truly incredible. thank you. a few questions we have gotten on twitter. what would you do in the white house about illegal immigration? >> obviously addressing this i have had a little bit more than just a talk about it. i think that's one of the major issues we have with washington and congress is that they talk. they talk and people literally die. we have had to deal with this issue last summer when there were literally tens of thousands of individual showing up, some of them unaccompanied minors on the southern border.

i had to make a decision on how to deal with that. not only my state but the country was being impacted by it. and the president asked me to come and meet with him on an airport ramp and i told him i'd be glad to do it mr. president but i want to talk to you about this issue of our border. we met and became abundantly clear to me that he was not going to address this issue. that is when i told him mr. president if you don't secure this border texas will and that's exactly what we did. we sent the national guard to secure the border and that's the point. if you do not secure the border first you can't have a conversation about immigration reform. that's just a fact. you don't trust washington deal with this. i don't trust washington to deal with this until they secure the border. and we know how to do this. we have had a 74% decrease in the number of apprehensions in that 150-mile region of the

border by deploying our national guard by putting law enforcement there. i would suggest one more thing and that is aviation assets that look down 24/7 and give us information and we can secure the border. [applause] then you have a conversation of how to deal with this entire immigration issue. there are a lot of interesting ideas on the table out there but not until we secure the border first. >> thank you governor perry. there is lots of talk of climate change. how would you as a present if you were to run how would you secure america's energy future? >> let me address this issue. i think there are some good examples of how to deal with our environment. as a matter that during the last 14 years texas added 5.6 million people to its population rolls. 1.4 million jobs created in that seven-year period of time.

5.7 million people, that's lots of cars on the roads in texas. during that same period of time using thoughtful incentive-based regulations we decrease our nitrogen oxide levels which by the way israel pollutant. it's a real emission. nitrogen oxide levels were down by 62% ozone levels were down by 23% silver nitrate levels down by 50% and our co2 levels were down. whether you believe in this whole concept of climate change are not co2 levels were down by 9% of the state. isn't that the goal of what we are working towards? the point is you can have job creation and you can make your environment better. that ought to be the role of those 50 states being able to put policies into place and simply-based policies that help

remove old dirty burning diesel engines from the fleet. we were able to transition our electrical power system into the natural gas burning. that ought to be our goal in this country and it all starts with energy policy. open up the xl pipeline, create energy jobs. [applause] from the standpoint of creating jobs and making america more energy secure. >> thank you governor perry. we appreciate you speaking so plainly on the send we thank you for coming today. >> thank you. god bless you all. >> the conservative political action conference known as cpac held its annual conference last week in washington. next a discussion on privacy and security issues with former cia and nsa director retired general michael hayden. the american conservative union

posts this 40 minute event. [applause] >> all right. good morning everybody. it is a great pleasure in a great honor to be with you this morning. we are going to be i think very fortunate to listen to the voices of two leading applicants of the opposing viewpoints and the nexus between national security and constitutional rights. we are joined this morning by general michael hayden who without question -- [applause] one of his this nation's most distinguished and long serving public servants and amongst all of his other duties he is also serving the nation as the director of the cia and the nsa.

which gives him some standing for this discussion today. and though my rights my good friend and colleague judge andrew napolitano. [applause] judge napolitano a former superior court judge in the great state of new jersey which we both have had the great fortune to live. i am saying that partially tongue-in-cheek attacks time certainly and senior judicial analyst. i refer to him as executive senior judicial analyst for "fox news." it's great to have both of these gentlemen with us. [applause] we are going to follow the format of presentations from each of them for a few moments about their views and then we are going to begin a discussion and i will ask questions of each beginning with judge napolitano. we will follow up and give each

an opportunity to rebut or agree passionately with the other as the case may be. with no further ado judge napolitano. [applause] >> thank you lou. good morning. in 1973 before most of you were born i was present at the first cpac in the madison hotel in downtown washington d.c.. there were 25 people there one of whom was a guy named ronald reagan. [applause] when i speak on privacy and security i often start out like this. i want everybody to take their blackberry, iphone and android whatever you have in your pocket and turn it on because i want a president obama and the nsa to be able to hear everything i'm about to tell you. [applause]

of course this is not a laughing matter because they will hear everything i'm about to tell you whether you turn this on or not. because they have the ability to turn this on without you knowing about it without going to a judge and getting a court order for your cell phone. they can listen to everything you say and read everything you write. how did we get there? my gosh we have the fourth amendment to the constitution of the united states to protect the quintessentially american right of the right to be left alone. the reason we have this amendment is because the framers and the founders found intolerable the concept of the british use of general warrants. a general warrant was an order from a secret court in london authorizing the bearer of the warrant to search where he

wanted and to seize whatever he found. we fought a revolution so general warrants would not come here and be wrote a constitution so that the new government here could not do to us what the british had done to us as colonists. in order to assure that we put the fourth amendment in the constitution which says you have the right to be left alone in your persons houses, papers and effects and if the government needs to assault your privacy and your persons houses papers and offensive must go to a judge and present evidence of probable cause about you. not about everybody in your zip code or your area code but about you. quote specifically describing the place to be searched or the person to be seized. this applies whenever the

government wants to search or seize whether it's for criminal purposes, tax purposes intelligence purposes or if they just want to know what you are doing. fast-forward to today. secret courts that our forefathers fought against in the revolution are here in washington d.c.. so secret that the judges on the courts have been sworn to secrecy. so secret that the judges on the courts are not permitted to keep copies of their own records. so secret that if you knew about it he would say this is a violation of the fourth amendment because these are general warrant that authorized the nsa to listen wherever they want and take copies of the content to whatever they listen to. we have come 180 degrees from fighting a war against those who would violate with impunity are right to be left alone to hire

public servants who would do that to us. we are in a twilight era where freedom is diminishing because with the exception of people in this room there is very little outrage. no matter how grievous the violation of constitutional liberty, if there is no outrage government will continue to do it. general hayden will tell you ended my few general hayden is a patriot whose entire career has been devoted to defending the country. [applause] general hayden will tell you when he speaks that the line between privacy and security can be moved by him. not by the court but by him or

whoever his successor is that the nsa. there is no principle of law. there's no constitutional principle. there is no supreme court ruling that move that line because you're right to be left alone is a natural and personal right. only you can give it up. the majority cannot take it away from you and certainly american spies cannot take it away from you. [applause] i hope after this morning you will be outraged. [applause] >> general hayden. >> is beginning to feel like an awakening for me here. if nsa were good if nsa were even capable of doing what the judge has just outlined for you we wouldn't be having a debate

here today. they would be nothing to argue about. let's talk about reality. let's talk about facts. the judge is an unrelenting libertarian. [applause] so am i. and i meant unrelenting libertarian who is responsible for four decades of his life for another part of that, provide for the common defense. [applause] let's talk about specifics. right after 9/11 congress of the united states had something called the joint inquiry commission. it was a combined house, senate intelligence committee inquiry into what went wrong on 9/11. one of the most telling aspects

of a document they came out with called the report that nsa i was the head at the time, nsa was far too conservative far too conservative when it came to the most important kind of terrorist communications there could be. terrorist communications one end of which was in the united states. so i am charged as your elected representatives naturally from the president was to be better able to respond to that kind of threat. there are tools available to us but winters of the constitution so we looked for the gentlest approach possible the one that would squeeze american privacy the least in terms of responding to that particular charge. how do you detect terrorist

communications entering or leaving the homeland because after all we have just been attacked from the homeland. we hit upon metadata defined as information about communication a call to, from, when and how long. despite what the judge said about assistance and constitutional protections that crude -- controlling legal authority with regard to metadata and smith versus maryland 1979 which the supreme court held 5-3 that metadata is not constitutionally protected. and we therefore struck upon metadata again as the gentlest way in which we could balance the two demands of our constitution security -- though there were other tools available. we were accused of using some of

these other tools. the judge came close to accusing us of those other tools a few minutes ago. we were accused of having a drift net over dearborn michigan or fremont california and taking up the

we have to have what is called a reasonable suspicion. judge it's not quite probable cause. reasonable articulable proof. imagine if you you will we grow up a safe house in yemen. we grab some guys that we haven't seen before and we grab a fun we have ever seen before but it's associated with these fellows who are associated with terrorism. we have a articulable suspicion that's a terrorist bomb that we get to walk up to this ocean of metadata and metaphorically now

we get to yell and say hey anybody in here talk to this phone? if we get a number in the bronx it raises its hand and says well yeah i got a call thursday and then i am now done explaining to you the authorities of the national security agency when it comes to this program. anything else that is done with that data has to go through law enforcement not the foreign intelligence processes. how many people get to yell through the transom anybody talk to this number? the last time i counted at nsa was 22. how many times did nsa yell through the transom? in 2013 was 160 times. now look obviously we differ

about this, understand this. some folks makes object to the existence of a database but before we pass judgment lets look at this in its totality. and how it has been conducted. again at the end of the discussion here some of you may disagree with me but i think we all should allow ourselves to think this ain't quite the british army parking lot boston common. thank you. [applause] >> as the only non-libertarian on this stage i would like to address a couple of things. and to begin with whether the general warrants or national security letter the reality is most americans are pragmatic

judge. they want to be safe. they want to be secure. is there a resolution beyond saying the fourth amendment, the constitution of the united states for bids intervention because we know as a nation we have had surveillance, we have expected surveillance if we separate utilities on google and facebook from what was once at&t. i think most americans would have been mightily upset to find that at&t was not cooperating with the federal government and its respective relevant agencies. >> most people who defend the constitution and the concept of privacy did not object to all spying. they object to all spying all the time on everything. when the general and his folks have reasonable articulable suspicion for a higher-level of probable cause they can go to a judge and get a warrant about that individual and that is what

the constitution requires. the good general took the same oath to enroll the same constitution when he entered the military and each time he got his well-deserved promotions to the rank of four-star general as i took from my terms on the superior court of new jersey. the constitution is a supreme law of the land. it governs werber goes whatever doesn't matter what its task is that if there's a problem with the constitution amended but while the fourth amendment is there it says if you want to search someone you have to present evidence about that person. [applause] >> and when you say go to court i presume you are not talking about a fisa court. >> when i was sitting in the general is probably familiar with this 24/7. sometimes a ridiculous assignment and sometimes an unwanted assignment because you

have to be awake 24/7. my friend who sits in washington d.c. and occasionally 24/7 famous li signed a search warrant on the back of his motorcycle at 3:00 in the afternoon. i assigned search warrants in my jim shorts in my living room at 3:00 in the morning. so judges are always available to hear emergent applications when there is probable cause about the target. the problem with what general hayden's books have done is gone to a secret court instead give us the authority to listen to or gathered data from them about all of verizon's customers. that's 110 million human beings as to which there is zero evidence about inappropriate behavior on the part of any of them. >> your response general? >> sure. first of all the jury should disregard their mark about

content because we have made the case this is about metadata and again we can argue about metadata. it's not about content. it's about fact of call and the controlling legal authority smith versus maryland 1979 there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy that you or i have about the bill that your telecommunications carrier has about you. with regard to reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause the judge wants us to go to a judge. nevermind what i said in my narrative here. this is not reasonable articulable suspicion about the number in the bronx that i refer to. this is reasonable articulable suspicion that the phone we just stashed in yemen is affiliated with terrorism. by the way the macrocollection of metadata since 2006 has been

authorized by a court. over the last two years nsa doesn't get to yell through the transom and lessig goes to a fisa judge about the specific phone number in yemen before they make the inquiry. >> satisfied? >> am satisfied that the general believes what he said. i'm not satisfied that is remotely consistent with the constitution. >> what may turn to another aspect. after edward snowden after the edward snowden affair broke. c this is supposed to be a happy occasion. >> it is a happy occasion and it's going to get happier. the reality is this. that we learned from general keith alexander running nsa but inquiry. his revelations. when asked about the number of conspiracies and planned attacks

that were thwarted, the number given by general alexander was 57 and we will go at that number rather than the adjustments here. what i wonder is why in the world the oversight committees intelligence oversight committees of the house and the senate why they didn't know that number themselves and two why that number has not been in some way incorporated into an analysis of the strategy of what we are doing and arguably intrusions into american society. >> it's a great question and it gets to the reasonableness argument in the front tab of the fourth amendment. the judge is emphasizing the back half that the award should be issued except upon probable cause in the realized that not all searches are legitimated by words. it is the overall standard that has to do with reasonableness

and you are right the judgment of reasonableness has to include the fact of whether or not it's worth doing. do you get anything out of the other and? i understand the offense that your phone is in fort meade in no good comes from that. we can't stand that argument. keith when he said 54 was referring to the significant events where we were able to intervene for not just the 215 program but the 702 program. the quality thinks of stoughton revealed with regard to make her privacy. this will offend the judge even more. remember i said to go to the court to get a warrant since 2006. i didn't go to court to get a warrant for four years. we were doing the ancestry of this program under broad executive authority which by the way the appellate court has upheld saying we take as a given

the executive has inherent constitutional authority to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant for foreign intelligence purposes. we are still basing this on a body of law. we have learned a lot from this program. i looked at some notes of the things we were able to show when i was doing it from my time at the agency which was 2005. 18 months ago the president ordered the closure of about three dozen american consulates and embassies throughout the middle east. as a matter of record the president said to jim clyburn we have an an american nexus to this to that? is this only about the middle east and jim because of this program because we were tracking the program through phone numbers was able to jam those phone numbers up against the metadata program came up empty

and said no mr. president we have no evidence this is a north american nexus which is very useful for security but you realize it's also very useful for liberty because the person was generally concerned he had a north american nexus what were his other options to give him confidence that he could keep you safe? >> a couple of comments. you only talked about the first half of general general alexander's testimony in which he testified under oath in response to either the house and senate intelligence committee i don't remember which that it was 54 or 57 plots that were stopped as a result of nsa spying. the next day general alexander when asked to identify the free he declined to identify them. i could list the half a dozen plots that have gone through.

the shoe bomber, the boston marathon bombers the copenhagen bombers, the revolution in yemen, the revolution in ukraine ukraine. you guys knew about that because you fomented it. [applause] the nsa's problem is that has to much information. it's listening to innocent people rather than focusing on those as to whom there is evidence of wrongdoing. i don't care and the constitution doesn't care who you listen to in a foreign country. i care who you listen to in the united states and the constitution says the prerequisite is probable cause. [applause] >> we are talking about the 215 program which has to do with metadata and phone bills. that is the high watermark that

nsa with regard to domestic communications in the united states. once again the judge has used the word listen. i challenge any of you to take your phone bill and put it up to your ear and listen. see what you can learn. [applause] >> i think for the record we should point out there are other agencies that have some responsibility for example in the boston marathon bombing and amongst them the fbi which had direct information from the russians. as to their concerns about those two brothers and some of their associates i don't know but it's comforting to say there are more agencies who are not adequate to a given task but anyway there it is. i would also like to give some idea of privacy that exist in the national security interest as it exists in a nexus between

the private sector and the public. we have two plaintiffs right now twitter and google insisting that they have a higher standing and responsibility for privacy then the government itself. but where we have private companies, google, facebook, microsoft they are operating it seems to greater degrees with the government for example china than they are with the government of the united states. it's a peculiar moment in our history whereas we would once have expected these companies to be very cooperative with their agencies. they are in fact resisting and in doing so to what end i don't think it's entirely clear to most of us and i would like to get your idea as to this conflict between private interests in public.

>> i don't like anymore than anybody else at google or verizon or at&t shares my e-mail with the government of china or the government of the united states. if i am a google or at&t customer they have a duty under our contractual relationship to respect my privacy. however the fourth amendment only governs the government. it does not govern private entities. if google wants to disseminate my e-mails to lou dobbs or general hayden they can do so and it's my obligation than to find another carrier. the problem is that the federal government of the united states through general hayden's former colleagues have pretty much said to google open everything up for us. we don't want to go to a judge. we don't want to have to come to you. we want to be there, present in your facilities so when we need

to read an e-mail or listen to a phonecall or learned the metadata we are right there and we can get it and they all caved. >> your response? >> wait for the applause. [applause] >> i thought you would do better than that. >> again that nsa were doing the things the judge outlined we would not be having that debate. he kind of echoed what is called the 702 program which allows the national security agency to approach isps internet service providers, e-mail providers with specific foreign e-mail accounts that have been warranted by a judge in a general way admittedly foreign e-mail accounts that the agency can then access for foreign intelligence purposes. you mentioned the boston marathon two or three times. let me come back to that as a

morality play but we are talking about. i can be very quick. the judge mentioned it as a failure. the nsa and other agencies would criticize these two kids. they were out there surfing the web for jihadists web sites. in gods name would you people doing, how didn't you know this? the reason we didn't know this is that we do not look at the web activity of american citizens or legal permanent residence in the united states. this isn't this open-ended activity that has been suggested. this is actually very narrow and the national security agency and that other elements of the security structure actually have chosen not to do things for your privacy that america played would make you a bit safer. >> may i ask the general a

question? >> no. [laughter] yes. >> is the head of the nsa have the constitutional legal authority to move the line between privacy and surveillance? >> there is a clue how to they would like you to answer. >> it's a trick question because i know how he answered it the last month out of law school. >> do you want the rest of the story? i will give you the executive summary. what i did in the afternoon of 9/11 had to do with something called minimization. ..

>> >> i think the identity is

important with the intelligence value of the report. [applause] saw in the afternoon of september 113,000 of my countrymen dead and two cities from my native western pennsylvania i told the nsa analyst when they made the judgment of the reasonable standard of the fourth amendment when they made the judgment as to whether or not u.s. identity were calls from afghanistan whether or not u.s. identity was the essential to understanding the intelligence value, they should use a different standard than they used it 8:00 that morning. [applause] if. >> somehow i did not hear you use the word constitution.

>>. [cheers and applause] >> so then i told george tenet and he told the president and vice president with the house intelligence committee offering to come down and listen is said you are cool the house said come down. and i did. for the strongest defenders of what is a has been doing but we talk about ron wyden. in you may agree with them

but those a new fully of the programs lost 13 / two. >> travel like to go to the discussion that is a lack of trust on the part of the american people. to deny that lack of trust is one of the healthiest aspects of our society today. that skepticism that assistance under a strict interpretation to help preserve god willing to this important and of the ranking members of the house intelligence committee has

not provided vigorous or provide intelligence oversight. congress has one of the lowest approval ratings in history right now. the president the same could be said of him with the openness of transparency has not devolved from this residency. we know there are good public servants to but we need far more that the constitution is being observed and we shared national values and i truly believe the american people's right now if the system about the reality. >> absolutely right. this discussion is taking place in a perfect storm of governmental and executive overreach.

so how often and i may argue the appropriateness of a new is happening in a broader context of the ira's fifth and i have a phone in the pen and we cannot wait to in the president decided if it was not in session for recess appointments. that is why i got my way to say let's make that judgment >> but the lack of accountability and lack of transparency for secrecy which the government has argued. with the general did not tell you if he goes to these committee members and they say yes they are sworn to secrecy and cannot tell their fellow members of the house of the senate where

the voters that sent them there so the government has intentionally created hastily a secret deep government and sworn everybody to secrecy including the judges that have been is implicit. the evidence of democracy. [applause] is that the government works for us. we don't work for its. [cheers and applause] so we have to know what it is doing. >> the judge has an important point and we probably agree the communities to be more transparent. bayou don't conduct espionage by foresight that is only because of secrecy. but the grand compromise by the way we're still the only western democracy that does

in in mid to late '70s that as to not rush whiz at the privilege of only the executive we now have oversight from the other branches of government. those that don't exist in other democracies. we have the sudden and house oversight committees i responsible to make sure they're currently informed of what it is we're doing. nobody else does this. we broaden the fisa corporation. -- court. nobody goes to a court to to espionage as we look at this with an essay -- an essay approval we say that is

overseen by the court. it is a trifecta. [applause] >> it is an honor to be with judge napolitano and general dated. and i would say general, as long as we have a man like yourself contesting biggity is to talk about the nation's interest and our great constitution, all men and women can play at home before cpac. thank you.

[applause] thank you very much. is a great pleasure to be here today to see you all here at cpac at the beginning of a critical election cycle. i said in 2008 and still believe barack obama was not in is not qualified to be president of united states on national-security grounds and we have two more years of peril to go. to very dangerous years this is why national security issues must me at the center

of the 2016 presidential debate. [applause] we must have a robust debate among the various republican candidates for the nomination and i fully expect to play a role in that debate one way or another. [applause] but of necessity we must look pass the republican nomination to prepare -- prepare for the 2016 election the wisdom is clear that hillary clinton will be the democratic nominee. but i will say hillary after her husband were one year ahead of me and law school. i have been burdened with them 20 years longer than the rest of the country. [laughter] [applause] i feel i have a civic obligation to help escort

them to the exit door of american politics. [cheers and applause] so in short, i am ready for hillary. she will run on the basis of her record as secretary of state. as hard as that is to believe. i will say clearly her for years that the state department demonstrates that she is not said to be president of united states. [cheers and applause] and if it is not hillary the alternatives are hardly better. joe biden? john kerry? elizabeth warren? here is the key point on national-security issues hillary's record is indistinguishable from barack obama's.

let's consider the evidence on international terrorism terrorism, and she supported obama withdrawal of american forces from iraq in 2011 the single most significant decision in to explain the chaos in the middle east the rise of isis and the creation of a new stay at of what used to be syria and iraq. that is her policy not just barack obama she is responsible for the state department consistent mishandling of the eric spring or misunderstanding in was not of a democracy but the onset of international terrorism the fruits of which we see right now. she failed to see isis would rise not only in iraq and syria also in libya were they just be headed 21 christians worker she abdicated the overthrow of

gadaffi and leaked it to the press then she failed to follow what. gaddafi was overthrown and chaos descended across libya. she is the one who said american unease to put more attention to africa but yet boko haram this week to meet -- sweeping across the african continent killing many people slaving others. she even said the swap of bertolt that's guantanamo was a positive step she said of those terrorists zero those five guys? they are not a threat to us. those five days knickknack guys. and do not ever forget than gauzy.

that may be what hillary was like but examine its wartime and she says in her memoir that i have read every page and i don't recommend it, that it was the fog of war that they didn't know what happened vichy new quickly enough to blame the video and stuck with a story despite contrary evidence that emerged. she is the one so callously testified in the united states senate, what difference at this point does it make what the cause of that attack is? that is a demonstration of her fundamental inability to understand what's at stake with the war on terrorism. [applause]

she left her desk at the state department the evening while the attack was still under way when american embassies and consulates all across africa and the middle east were under threat. she left the state department to go home for i have worked for six different secretary of state to serve pierides and backgrounds not one would have led whole when people were still in trouble. [applause] during that entire evening she never once called the secretary of defense leon panetta. he but has been on the phone every 15 minutes and that fundamental reality is she did not prepare for that attack or anticipate it she was not doing her job to

protect americans that were sent to dangers posed overseas. we knew from february that libya had descended into chaos. we had to had a ferry boat to get the people lot of tripoli and then to take steps again september 11th and people were left to die in a terrorist attack and we had no way to rescue them. but even worse under tenure tenure, the entire administration into a reservoir person to bring this to this state's with no retribution retaliation with

the terrorists in their state sponsors around the world have learned under barack obama or hillary clinton you can kill an ambassador into a without impunity. that is hillary clinton's legacy. we have pursued a policy against the ally of israel thinking it is israel's action with peace and security in the middle east. it was hillary clinton's reset button that was sunday been translated correctly when she gave it to the foreign minister of russia. she advocated collapsing national missile defense program just the point we were needed to protect ourselves against the regime ballistic missiles. she negotiated the new start for arms control agreements

that allow russia to rebuild the nuclear capacity as ours was drawn down. russia committed massive unanswered violations of the ims treaty. she allowed the ukraine to be brought honorable and allow vladimir putin to use military force on the continent of europe to change international boundary something we said in 1945 we would never allow to happen again. what is next? with president clinton? with other nato members will recede? in the far east she faced china to make massive territorial claims and her policy in response was to call for a peaceful negotiation of territorial claims. tell them when they see installations in the south china sea.

helen a clinton has treaties that threaten american sovereignty that is a backhanded way to get around the second amendment and said she was to sign the international criminal court treaty and the deal that brought the bomb is about to sign those negotiations were launched while she was secretary of state. this deal is the biggest act of american appeasement in american history to move to nuclear weapons capability to legitimize the terrorist regime that has been the largest fine dancer of international terrorism for the last 35 years. all of this occurred under hillary's watch then we come to issues like north korea in its nuclear weapons program that is a memory lapse under hillary clinton.

i come back to the point off the has to be the case national security is at the core of the presidential campaign. [applause] the conventional wisdom do not care about foreign policy is wrong they are ahead of their leaders on that point and they want a president who will defend the country. [applause] we made a grave mistake 2008 and 2012 by electing someone who was unqualified and unwilling to do what was necessary to protect our country from foreign threats. we cannot afford to make that mistake third time in a row.

people in this room key and and must make that difference in 2016. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] six thank you ambassador bolton. >> we have just a few questions from twitter. the first one what you think will be the real adverse effects of the immigration program or the security of this country? >> i think it is a mistake to begin with even to talk about comprehensive immigration reform. i think we've made that mistake under president reagan despite his best effort is going from 3 million illegal immigrants the with the president is

trying to do is very similar to what he does that this is not about governance but fundamentally transforming america i still think the borders are not secure but the problem of drug trafficking in human trafficking with threats to do national security even the obamacare administration indicted officials a few years ago for plotting to kill the ambassador in the streets of washington. the control of the border has implications for national security and as with other national security issues the president is simply in different. [applause] >> talk about the expansion of isis and in this country the lack of strategy to deal with that and what spot that

puts the next commander-in-chief. >> the president has been completely negligent in his duty does not believe we are not in the war was terrorism pieces it is law enforcement like the trump the perversion of robbing a local starbucks. if you don't understand it is the ideology that is determined to destroy our way of life you cannot react against it. i think more are coming from many other places around the world and will wait for the opportunity we saw what had been due in paris and copenhagen and in this country. we have had examples of workplace violence. we have the boston marathon.

nobody wants to be at war ladies and gentlemen,. we did not start that but ignoring it does not mean it will go away. [applause] >> the visit that comes that very soon by the prime minister netanyahu the president's relationship with israel on and off in negotiations with iraq? >> president obama since the state of israel was created in 1948. he has used israel as an extension of the west into the middle east as intrusion into the problem and has six years of threats and what has he focused on? that this dingell gravest threat according to the

obama clinton view is it is in east jerusalem now we have a leader of our closest ally in the region to face is the existential threat of what some have called a nuclear holocaust. there is no is real. the prime minister netanyahu is entirely correct to see this deal as a sellout. and i congratulate speaker greater to have this joint session of congress. glading barack obama his behavior is reprehensible. and if hillary clinton

really wants to be president of united states, if she is ever to break from barack obama if ever to show any daylight between her policies and barack obama she should welcome that conneaut do any with him and work with them and show that she really has america's interest first. it what happened but that is what she should do. thank you very much. [applause] ♪

. .