and that is important. and i think -- >> so is that part of a deal, you think? >> it's technically separate from the deal in the sense there's a separate dialogue going on with the iaea. but we would like to see satisfaction of that. i think -- >> i'm sorry, so you're linking those two now? >> it's important for the iaea and iran to come to conclusions about the so-called possible military dimensions of the program. the most important thing, though, when you think about this, going forward, that is, putting in place the regime that we need and that our partners need to give us the greatest possible assurances that iran is making good on its commitments, not deviating from them, not cheating on them. and that goes to what kind of inspection regime you have, what kind of transparency. and what has to result from any agreement is the strongest, most intrusive inspection and access program that any country has seen. because iran has forfeited the trust of the international community -- >> you think you'll be able to get an intrusive inspection?

>> that will be a test of any agreement. i think what we've seen already in the interim agreement is much greater access than the international inspectors have had before. and in places that they didn't have it before. what's interesting among other things about it is they've had access along different points of the production chain for fissile material. for example, the mines and mills. not just the places where the centrifuges are spinning. the more you have of that the greater the certainty you can have that iran is making good on its commitments. >> how do you respond to netanyahu's comment that it was "astonishing" that you were going forward without having resolved the coming clean issue? >> again, that's an ongoing process. the iaea has been engaged in it. they've made some progress. also had a lot of frustration

with iran not coming fully clean. that's something we want to see move forward over the coming months. and i think -- keep in mind, even if there is an agreement, the actual relief that would come to iran in terms of initially the suspension of sanctions and then ultimately the lifting, the repeal of sanctions. they will have to make good on their commitments up front. and i think one of the things we would expect to see is some resolution of the issues with the iaea. >> do you think it's problematic that netanyahu's coming to speak to congress? >> so let me say a couple of things about that. first, prime minister of israel is always welcome in the united states. to speak any place, any time. i think what's unfortunate here is the way this came about. and because of the way it came about, it turned it into a political issue. and the relationship with israel should not be a partisan or political issue. the fact of the matter is, over

the course of the last six years, when it comes to israel's security, in my judgment, no administration has done more than this administration. and the relationships at every level, whether it's among the political leaders, the intelligence officials, the defense officials, i don't think there's been more coordination, cooperation, dialogue exchanged than we've seen in the last years ever before. and where it really matters. the provision of what israel needs to defend itself and protect itself. this has been an exceptional period. let me give you one quick example. this is something i happened to see up close and personal. this past summer during the gaza crisis i was in my office at the white house at the time. i got a call from israel's ambassador. "i'd like to come see you on an urgent basis." came over about 8:30 at night. and he said, "we really need an urgent resupply and funding to buy more intercepters for iron

dome," the missile defense system that has saved many, many lives. and he and the defense attache ran through the substance of why they needed it and why they needed it then and there. the very next morning, this was on a thursday night. friday morning, i was the oval office with the president and i ran through what i heard from the israelis. and he said, "make it happen." and by tuesday, we had $250 million from congress to do that. so whatever the tensions, whatever the disagreements on various issues, when it comes to the core of the relationship, that is, our absolute commitment to israel's security, it's never been stronger. >> if you get a deal that you feel is good and the rest of the negotiating partners feel is good, to what extent do you think you need congress' approval and for what aspect dozen you or do you not need congress' approval?

>> congress is an absolutely integral part of this entire process. from takeoff to flight to land. the sanctions regime that congress legislated and then the international component that we help bring to bear, without that iran would not be at the table. simple as that. congress was absolutely critical in getting us to the point that we're at. going forward, congress is going to be critical because, as i said, what we're looking at doing if we get an agreement is initially suspending sanctions, which the president can do under his own authority. but then ultimately ending them. and congress has to do that. and the reason we do it this way or we propose to do it this way is that having the sanctions suspended creates real leverage to make sure that iran makes good on its commitments. as soon as you end them, that may take some of the -- >> in other words, you're not going to go to congress and ask that the sanctions be ended right away? >> not right away. what we want to see if we get an

agreement is iran demonstrating it's making good on commitments. then congress has a very strong role to play in insisting on them, and then not actually ending as opposed to suspending sanctions until iran has demonstrated it is making good. >> david? >> thanks very much. good to see you, tony. one more question on iran while we're still on this. many people in congress who i've spoken with seem surprised that at the end of this agreement, whenever this agreement ends, the iranians are basically free to do what any other signatory of the iaea treaties and so forth -- they could go back and build the number of centrifuges in the tens of thousands the supreme leader has discussed. tell us what we're supposed to think about that. that's a big israeli concern. it's a big concern in congress.

and also tell us how this concept of a phased agreement in which the iranians would be frozen for ten years, then may be able to build up slowly, might work to alleviate those concerns. >> so without getting into any of the details of the negotiations, because keep in mind, what's so challenging about these is that it's a classic -- it really is the classic example of nothing's agreed until everything's agreed. and because of these elements are so interrelated, sometimes you hear -- one thing comes out in the media. allegedly something we're proposing to do. and absent the context, it's often misunderstood. let me give you one quick example of that, then i'll answer the question directly. there's a lot of back and forth sometime in the media about how many centrifuges might iran have at the end of this process? we see different numbers. the reason that is going to be a subject of negotiation and the reason that that number in the abstract is meaningless is because if you're looking at

assuring that iran must have -- it must take at least a year for it to produce enough fissile material for a weapon, the number of centrifuges is an important component of figuring that out. so is the type of centrifuge, so is the configuration, so is the stockpile of material that they're allowed to work with. depending on the configuration of those elements you could have more or fewer centrifuges and still get to your one year. so that's why, looking at some of these elements in isolation is really the wrong way to go. with regard to the end of the process, that is, let's say there's an agreement and it lasts for years, in the double digits. what happens at the end? and the fact is this. there will be a permanent ban on iran pursuing weapons activity. it will have to apply the additional protocol in perpetuity. there will be extensive iaea safeguards that are very

significant. and during the process and during the agreement itself, for however long it lasts what we will be learning about the program, every person involved, virtually, if not every nook and cranny, that base of knowledge will exist beyond the duration of the agreement. and then, of course, we would retain the same capacity and probably a greater capacity than we have now to deal with any efforts by iran to actually go to some kind of nuclear weapon. the bush administration put on the table the proposition that iran would be treated as a nonnuclear weapon state after it complied for some period of time with any agreement. and that's exactly what we're doing. that is the purpose of this very, very challenging exercise. at some point in the future, having demonstrated that it's making good on its commitments, iran would be treated as a nonnuclear weapon state.

but it is going to have a -- we're going to have a knowledge of what's going on that far exceeds what we have now. and again, there will be a permanent ban on weapons. if we see it moving in that direction we would be able to do something about it. we will have the same capacity we have today and probably a greater capacity to act on it than we -- in however long it is for the duration of the agreement. >> given the point you just made about having to see the agreement as a whole to get to the one-year breakout period, have the selective leaks been very problematic and have they come from israel? >> i think that selective leaks on anything create more confusion than daylight. and that's unfortunate. you know, one of the challenges of this business is that -- and i know david appreciates this -- is that we in government are

constantly trying to plug the leaks and our friends like david are constantly trying to pry them out. i think the challenge is, whenever there is a leak, whether it's on the iran negotiations or anything else, one of the obligations that those writing about them have i think is to give it the, if possible, the context and the explanation. so things are not seen in isolation. >> speaking of davids who get leaks, david ignatius. we'll go to the goliaths after this. >> i'll happily answer to that summons. tony, let me ask you about two issues that will arise if you do get an agreement. and the first is the i would say likely demand of other countries

in the region that they be allowed to have the same nuclear capability, threshold capability, with enrichment, centrifuges, et cetera, that the agreement with grant iran. and how do you envision dealing with that problem? second, the day after the agreement is the day before iran's threat to regional security through its proxies, through foreign policy, from yemen, damascus, beirut to baghdad. it's going to be there. how does the administration envision dealing with that problem in a world where you have an agreement? >> great. thanks, david. so with regard to whether other countries may see this as a model to follow, i think it's

about the last model any other country would want to follow. what is the iranian model? it as decade or more of sanctions, of isolation, of economic decline, as a result of its efforts to pursue enrichment and reprocessing programs. and our policy remains that countries that don't have that technology ideally should not have it. the other thing that i think makes iran no role model for anyone is that, as i noted, any agreement is going to have an exceptionally intrusive access/inspections monitoring regime. i doubt strongly other countries in the region or elsewhere would want to have what iran is going to have to accept if there's going to be any agreement. so i really don't see it as a model that anyone would want to follow. with regard to threats to regional security, you're exactly right. i want to make it very clear that even as we pursued this agreement with iran on the nuclear program, we have worked very, very vigorously to push back and counter and enforce the

various sanctions and mechanisms that are out there to deal with iran's actions and behaviors that are profoundly objectionable. whether it is support for terrorism, whether it is destabilizing activities in other countries that threaten some of our partners and allies, or indeed for that matter its own activities at home. and so what you've seen throughout this effort is the very vigorous enforcement of sanctions, including in the nuclear area, which we made very clear we would continue to strongly enforce all the existing sanctions and we have. but also in the terrorism area. in the issue of destabilizing other countries. we have over the course of the interim agreement designated, sanctioned, more than 100

entities and individuals in all of those different areas. we've interdicted shipments to various countries that have been problematic. we've continued to vigorously enforce and monitor all of the anti-proliferation requirements. and we've also worked over the last six and a half years to build up the capacity of our partners in the gulf to deal with iranian aggression and destabilizing activities. we've worked very closely with the gcc. we've put in place different capabilities that strengthen their ability to deal with problems. we are working with the gcc as an entity. in fact, one of the things that we did in terms of arms, the supply of arms and weapons, they can be treated as an entity for the pump of acquiring arms from the united states. so all of that will continue as long as the activities that iran

is pursuing continues. let me just add two things without exaggerating. first of all, inherently, the biggest threat to stability in the region would be iran armed with a nuclear weapon. so to the extent the agreement takes that off the table, that is profoundly in the interests not only of the united states but also of countries in the region. second, i think that there are some elements in iran that are trying to approach their policies around the world in a somewhat more pragmatic fashion. not because they are necessarily good guys or like us, but because they see it as in iran's interests. to the extent that those people emerge in a stronger position and those who are pursuing the most noxious policies around the world are in a different position that wouldn't be a bad thing either. but again, that's not a big aspect of this, but at least it's something to consider. >> you just said something that caught my ear, which is that

you're allowing the gcc to acquire weapons directly. do you think that should or could lead to a path where some arab nations create their own nato, as general sissy in egypt and the saudis, emirates, and others, and is that something we should encourage? >> we hear more and more from our partner interests in doing something like that. you're hearing from the jordanians, saudis, emirates, egyptians, different ideas in that direction. moving from talking about it to acting on it is, of course, a big challenge. but as a general proposition, their ability to come together and act in a unified way to deal with challenges would be a good thing. now, we're seeing some of that in the context of the anti-isil

coalition where these countries are flying with us and flying together and that's helpful. but i think seeing this kind of initiative coming out of the region, coming from these countries, is important. and now the question is whether they can move from thinking about it and talking about it to starting to put in place some practical elements. >> p.j. crowley? >> picking up on isil, you and the vice president have spent probably as much time focused on iraq as anybody else in the administration over the past six years. how do you assess the performance of the body governments so far? they seem to be saying the right things but on the ground, do you see a change as of yet in the relationship between the baghdad government and the sunni community? and then secondly, on libya, given the egyptian action and the aftermath of the beheading of the coptic christians, should we view libya as a third front in the campaign against isil? >> thanks, p.j.

i think the abadi government has taken significant strides to try to improvement the relationship with the sunni community and create buy-in so that community sees its future not with isil but with iraq. it's a work in progress. it's usually challenging. i think they're in the middle of it, not at the end of it. but specifically we saw the formation of a more inclusive government. we saw the naming after this had been on ice for a long time of a sunni defense minister. we saw the prime minister take important steps, for example, expanding the office of the commander in chief, which had been prime minister maliki's way of having control over the military outside the chain of command. that was disbanded. dozens of generals were dismissed who were either ineffective or had very sectarian agendas. we've seen legislation that had been stalled start to move, including on debaathification. the council of ministers sent it

back to the council of representatives a couple of weeks ago, there's back and forth there. then very significantly, legislation to form a national guard that would allow members of sunni tribes to be part of a security force defending their own communities but attached to the state through training and equipping and salaries. that legislation is probably going to take time, about but in the interim, the abadi administration agreed that it would try to train and pay for and integrate with the iraqi security forces tribal fighters. and they made a commitment to do that with about 7,500, primarily in anbar and innua, and they've reached that number. so on all of those fronts we're seeing progress. we also saw a budget that was passed that provides significant resources for the sunni governance.

on the other hand, one of the big challenges has been that as the iraqi security forces in some maces have moved to take back territory lost to isil, in the early going the shiite militia were a critical component of their success. and a number of those militia have been responsible for abuses and for revenge on the sunni community that had nothing to do with isil, they were victimized by it. that's something that needs to be reined in in a very serious manner. what's interesting has been that leaders in the shia community, especially the grand ayatollah sistani, have very publicly pushed back on the abuses of the shia militia. i would say it's a work in progress. but what's critical is, in taking back the territory lost to isil, the integration of the tribal fighters with the iraqi security forces. we're intimately involved in that. we're putting them together at the al assad base where we have trainers. as that moves forward then i think you'll see that, you know, abadi's making real progress in

actually showing the sunni community that the future is with iraq and not with isil. >> james? >> and libya. >> libya. so libya presents a real challenge. because it -- to the extent that it becomes mired in civil war and truly chaotic, then it becomes a natural area that extremists will look to for a haven. because they prey on places that have weak governments, weak security forces and are in conflict. so we have a very strong incentive to try and prevent that from happening. right now there's a significant effort under way led by the united nations to try and form a national unity government. the only good thing that's emerged from the recent atrocities in libya conducted by isil or affiliates is it seems to have at least marginally concentrated the minds of all the different actors that there's something even more dangerous at stake than the differences that they have. and that is the potential for isil and affiliated groups to

get a real strong foothold in libya. so that may help us get to a unity government. if that happens the international community is in a better place to provide the assistance libya needs and start to build the bulwark against extremists taking root in libya. >> coming up on this switch continents for a second, asia, you were just out there, take a wild stab and guess china may have come up with our allies. i wonder -- i want to ask two related debates. one is how all-powerful is xi jinping now? is there anything left of collective leadership in china? and the other is a narrative i see taking shape -- versus other views that we really -- what we saw now as far as fairly tight repression began in '99 or going

by back, maybe 1989. but where do you see him now? >> look, i think it would be hard for me or for anyone else to really decipher exactly what is going on internally in china in terms of the sort of internal power politics of it. but it does seem, as a sort of outside observer, that the president has worked hard to consolidate his authority and his power and has had some success in doing that. what i can talk about really is the state of the relationship and what we're trying to do together. and i think what we've seen, especially over the last year or so, is we've expanded the foundation for cooperation.

and we're working together in more places productively than we have i think at any time in the past. and so just at the end of the year, as you know and saw, the leadership that we were able to exert with china on climate change was significant. china's efforts to deal with ebola, in part at our urging, were significant. and beyond that, the military to military relationship is in a better place than it's been as a result of efforts, exchanges, confidence-building measures, et cetera. going forward into this year with the state visit to president xi and a pretty active agenda, we have i think the ability to continue to expand and deepen some of that cooperation. at the same time, part of this relationship is being very direct and very forthright about our differences. and not trying to sidestep them or ignore them. rço(háhat's exactly the nature of the conversations that i had when i was out there, and obviously others have had, and

the secretary of state, the president, et cetera. but i think when i step back, i guess i think about two things. when i try to imagine how china should be looking at this or might want to think about looking at this. and i had these conversations with some of our counterparts. first, one of the primary sources of friction as you know, jim, better than anyone in the region, is china's activities in the south china sea, senkakus, et cetera. this has caused a number of countries to come to us in ways they haven't in the past. one of the things i suggested to counterparts in china in some of our meetings, you know, our countries are obviously very different. different systems, different evolutions, et cetera. and this was a little simplistic but nonetheless relevant. and that is in many ways, china now, at least in the region, is where the united states was after world war ii.

then our leaders had to decide how to use our emerging power on the world scene. and they made incredibly wise decisions to take the lead in creating institutions, writing rules, establishing norms, that bound us. and so on one level, restrained the full exercise of our power. but at the same time, had the incredible beneficial effect of telling other countries, oh, you don't have to band together against the united states to check its power, because you have a voice, you have a say, you have the ability to help lead the direction of the world. and i suggested to some of our colleagues in china that this was relevant and interesting history as they thought about their approach to their emerging power. the other thing i'd say is this. when you think about the wealth of a nation today, in the past

we defined it classically, how many people do you have? how big is your land mass? what's the size of your military? what's the abundance of your natural resources? all of those things are critically important and the good news for the united states is, we're doing very well, our wealth is great in all those areas. but i think there is a very strong consensus that in the 21st century, the true wealth of the nation is measured by its human resource and the ability of a country to maximize that resource, to allow it to debate, to create, to innovate, to think for itself. and there we also have, i think, a position of great prominence and privilege in the world. and it's something too that our chinese friends might want to reflect about. >> kimberly dozer, maybe you can get congress bowman's microphone and move up a little bit. thanks. press the red button, yeah. >> two-part question on countering violent extremism. first of all, how do you keep the pressure on? and second of all, how do you deal with the fight over what to

call the militants? on cve a number of people i spoke to who attended the meetings this past week said, great ideas, but the same ideas as before. and the moment the attention is gone, there's not enough money, there's not enough consistency. and in terms of calling them islamic militants versus criminal extremists, which are your arab partners that asked you to call them criminal extremists instead of the other? and how do you keep the republican comments about this from destroying your neutrality? >> i've got to say i sat through a big part of the meeting last week and then read the parts that i wasn't able to stay for. i learned a tremendous amount. from listening to people who had

been confronting this problem in different places and different aspects of the problem around the world. and just for that reason alone, i thought it was an incredibly valuable exercise. but it also builds i think solidarity and a common plan of action going forward. so let me just say a couple of things quickly and i'll get to the specific questions. first, one of the questions we grapple with is, why do we see this? why is this happening? and particularly, you've seen a significant expansion in the number of foreign fighters. people who travel from one country to another to get into the fight or to conduct acts of terrorism, more accurately. and one of the things that was striking, i think, in listening to this is that, you know, there's actually no one story. when you talk to the experts who have had a chance to talk to people who have gone from one country to another to join extremist groups, it's an incredible mix. some are pious. some are not. some are troubled, some are incredibly well-adjusted and would do very well in their

societies if they stayed put. some seem to have a humanitarian calling because they believe some of the false stories that are told to them. others are attracted by the notion of adventure and thrill-seeking. and then some, of course, actually are committed to the sort of totalitarian vision that isil and other groups have. so one of the first challenges is actually -- at least this is one of the things i picked up -- another element that seems to be something of a common denominator is vijsz who feel

like they have no stake in the societies that they are in and no future. that too can be a driver. a lock of critical thinking skills is a common denominator in the studies that have been done. and then of course in the countries in question themselves, state repression corruption2+3kñs#ktñrbp]7 drivers. and of course for those of us who are dealing with foreign fighters who are coming back, some of these folks are coming back disallusioned because the stories they were told by isis or other groups turned out not to be true. others are psychological and they have to be help. but then you have a very dangerous core who come back with experience, skills, further radicalized who have going try to make trouble at home and they have to be dealt with directly. so there are two components in what we've been trying to do and

this is a long way of answering the question first we have to counter, directly counter those who would use violence and rzwñ terrorism. these are people who are ÷qúrt the reach of reason and we go at them with everything we have. and that is why in the case of isil is a build a strongñni;rébo6em÷f%u7s@r(t&h á workingç÷"=re other countries to stop financing and stop the flow of foreign fighters and we;fm}(çu i$rtnñø2ñzm!t+6yçñ3=/ ne5fq@r(t&háhp &h

word working with parents giving them tools. that can be effective. and if internet has been a profoundly powerful tool to attract recruits. and rick stengle who runs the effort of the state department has been doing tremendous work there. but here is the other things. for obvious regions we are often

not the best messenger. so getting other countries to step up. and not just countries. identifying people who have the direct ability to reach people is critically important. and wor working on that. and finally this is a much longer term e effort. how do you convince people in france or germany or denmark -- or pick your place -- or the united states that they really do have a stake in the future of their societies? and they don't become as susceptible as they are to these narratives. one of the other. is prisons. two of the three charlie hebdo attackers were radicalized in prison. went to prison they became ideological. so that is something also we need to get a grip on. finally to answer your question about the so called islamic label. i think it is a profound mistake to put that label on what we're

seeing. for two reasons. first of all it is exactly what the extremists want. they want to be legitimatized by a association with religion. we would be playing into their narrative. second -- and by the way i think fareed zakaria pointed this out in a piece the other day which is interesting there are 1.6 billion muslims around the world. somewhere around 20 or 30 thousand adherents to isil. so we would be allowing 0.0019% of a particular religious group to define the entire group? that makes no sense. and beyond that the second reason is it has the potential actually to alienate the people that you need on the front lines combatting this problem. and that is exactly what we heard from most, if not all -- at least what i heard -- of the ministers and other delegates from the countries who were in town last week.

>> damian and then. grab the mic. >> thanks tony. that has been very interesting. last week stefan was in downed for syria. he said in a private briefing iran has been supporting syria the assad regime annually which is almost 10% of iran's gdp. i'm wondering if you cannen comment on that and also has been any evolution in iran's regional policies since hassan rohan's election. over the last year and a half have you seen any difference in the regional policies? >> thanks. second question first. i haven't seen any difference. if anything i've seen iran trying to take advantage of different openings for example in yemen. and we've seen a continuation of

destablizing activities support for terrorist groups. i think there's been -- you could make the case that for reasons of their own they have done some positive things in iraq not in any coordination or concentration with us because it advanced their interests. but that is their own agenda. i think it is a reflection of the fact that first what we're doing with iran on the nuclear file is entirely segregated from everything else. it's been walled off. and the people who are responsible for trying to pursue the agreement on behalf of iran are not the same people who are really in charge of their policy in other areas. so there seems to be a little bit of a dichotomy between the way they are approaching the nuclear issue, which has been, you know, i would say largely pragmatic, doesn't mean we'll get to an agreement versus their

activities in other areas, which i think have continued and arguably accelerated in some ways. second, with regard to the support for syria, i can't vouch for the number that stephan provided but there is no doubt ire iran is spending a significant amount of resources to prop up the assad regime and resources arguably it can't afford. so hopefully maybe one thing for iran to think about putting it weight and influence behind some kind of negotiated political transition. and the same goes for russia. they are also spending significant resources to support assad, resources that they also don't really have the luxury of spending in that way. and one would hope that they will think twice going forward that it might be to their benefit to not have to make those same kind of expenditures and help move in the direction of a political transition that allows syria to remain in tact

its institutions in tact but takes the magnet for extremism which is bad for russia and bad for iran in terms of isil away. and that is assad. >> mr. secretary. my question is about linkage and to what extent you and your colleagues have been thinking about that. you spoke today very eloquently on many of the leaders of the administration have already spoken also about the impact of our sanctions and european sanction on russia and what kind of adverse effect they have had. to what extent on the measurement from zero to ten is there concern in the administration that there may be linkage that results from that? particularly, to what extent are we relying on russian cooperation for a successful result with iran? >> so i think it is a really interesting question. and one that we -- we've been

looking at. and here is what i can tell you just in terms of sort of practiceal observation. what's been really interesting is that again because it's i think a matter of self interest when it comes to the iran nuclear negotiations, the russians have been a constructive partner. and they have remained a constructive partner. they have tried to advance constructive ideas in the course of these negotiations. and so the profound difference that we have with them over ukraine has not bled into the iran nuclear negotiations. i would say similarly, although it is less acute because not much is happening, on north korea korea, that has not been especially problematic either. so i think what one can take from that is in part that where russia concludes that a particular issue and concentration in the context of that issue advances its own

interest, it is going to keep doing it. irpt irrespective of what was going within ukraine or anything else. at least that's been the case to date. i think, you know, one of the many frustrations about the actions that russia chose to take in ukraine is that we had built, over some years, better cooperation with russia on a number of fronts that were obviously beneficial to our own security and interests and presumably beneficial to theirs. whether it was new start whether it was iran, whether it was afghanistan where russian cooperation has been important in allowing us to move people and material in and out, that was all good. and we were ironically russia's probably biggest champion to getting into the wto as you remember. but that is of course no longer

where we are in the relationship. be bottom line is where its self interest is clearly at stake and operation advances that self interest, it continues. >> thank you. so one how do you assess putin's intentions towards the three baltic states? is nato absolutely committed to defending them? and does nato have the military capability to do so whether it would be a conventional type of aggression? or as we've seen in crimea and eastern provinces of ukraine this new sort of the invasion from within. >> the answer to your second is nato committed to defense of baltic state members? the answer is yes, period. with regard totally third the third

part, do we have the means? yes. and the one of the things we've been working on since this crisis erupted was to take very concrete steps not only to reassure partners and allies but also to enhance capacity to deal with these kinds of challenges. i'm confident that if it came to -- thank you. the answer is yes. the first part of the question is a lot harder. and i don't know. it is hard to read intentions. i think one -- one thing i take from what's happened in ukraine is that to some extent there's been a lot of improvising by russia to deal with a fast-changing situation that seems to be spinning out of it control. but unfortunately i think from its perspective the improvising has actually put it in a place where it is actually going to over time be a real strategic

loss for them. but i can't put myself in that mind set. i do think that it would bep a very serious mistake for anyone to doubt our commitment to -- and the commitment of other allies to our nato commitments. >> but what would that kind of defensive action look like if they used say in latvia the kind of m.o. they used in crimea? >> i'm not going to speculate on what might happen in the future in hypothetical situations. i can tell you that countries are very seized with concerns of those kinds of actions in the future. and i think they are looking very hard and acting on how they can better position themselves for something like that happens. but it is hard to really speculate about something like that. >> professor. >> thank you. thanks for this very comprehensive statement today. i'd like to ask a semi academic

question. back on ukraine. as you would expect me to do. foreign policy, specifically on ukraine. i pierce when we talk about its independence and sovereignty. when we talked about the sanctity of its borders, aren't we not promising more than what our allies in the b atlantic alliance are prepared to deliver? >> charles i think to date at least one of the great strengths if not the greatest strength of the approach we've taken is we've sustained the solidarity among our partners and allies. and we've managed to do virtually everything jointly and in lock step. and there's been criticism at various points along the way

that we should have gone further and faster. for example on various points on sanctions. and the president's believe very strongly that we're actually much more effective if we can sustain that kind of joint action and solidarity. particularly when it comes to exerting pressure. so what we've seen at least up until now is rather extraordinary unity of purpose with the major european partners on ukraine. and it is not easy as you know better than anyone. there is tremendous pressures that governments are under to take different directions on this. but thanks in no small measure, at least in my judgment, first and foremost to the president's leadership. because i have witnessed this firsthand and it's stuff that doesn't get seen on a daily basis. but the constant calls and meetings and -- led my him throughout have made a huge

difference of keeping all on the same page and of course folks working with the president and the sektsry engaging on this. that's madei] a huge difference. but we've also seen extraordinary leadership from our partnersu angela merkel and prime minister cameron, president hollande and others. we've put an agreement on trying to sustain that cooperation and coordination and unity because we think that's how we're more effective. and conversely if we allowed putin to divide us that would be a strategic success for him that we don't wanted and can ill afford. but this is as we've started outning by saying, this is a very challenging situation. you have a country that is right there. on ukraine's border. with significant resources in terms of its military and

proxies that it is supplying, supporting, promoting. and the idea that this can be reversed militarily i think is unlikely. which is why a more asymmetric response, primarily through exerting pressurexd i believe over time is going to produce results that we're looking for. but to do that we need to keep the unity we have with the europeans. >> thank you. tony, a slightly more personal question if i may. you spent six years workingñi in a white house and in an nscr gained a reputation for being extremely covetous of the most# sensitive foreign policy files was accused from time to time of micro managing and there was clear frustration in the agencies with on the part of many people who felt that they just didn't have enough leeway. you have now gone to one of those agencies. so i'm wondering what life is

like at the other end of that telescope. [ laughter ] >> so, you know, on my second day at the state department we i had come to one conclusion after 48 hours of state. that is micromanagement at the white house has to stop. [ laughter ] my own experience different people see this different ways having worked in the clinton administration and been a witness to the bush administration from congress, my sense that r is that this is the same story with different degrees maybe in virtually every administration. there are inherent institutional challenges that are built into the system between the white house and the state department, the pentagon, pick your agency. and sometimes it's a function of in terms of how far up the dial you're going with the individuals, maybe it's a

function of the issues that are in play. bit seems to me that this is something that's just baked in and built in. i like to think that when i was still at the white house working on the interagency process as the deputy national security adviser that in fact we ran a very inclusive process where all of the agencies and departments were at the table, had their say and indeed drove policy in most areas. that was the way it was supposed to wrk and that's the way, at least in my small part, i tried to make it work. so again i think some of the frustrations and concerns that get expressed just seem to me to be the natural product of the institutional relationship that exists in any administration. >> i've been given the signal that there's only one more question and two people have been on the list for a while. i'm going to ask both of you to ask a question together and

secretary blinken can use it as a spring board for his closing statement. i know there are many others, but they've had their hands up for a while. >> mr. deputy secretary, i'm just wondering, we had a minsk agreement the other day and then i don't think it was never not under fire. did you know that's what was going to happen? is that what you expected? are there any red lines in ukraine as far as the administration is concerned? >> doyle why don't you ask one as well and that way we can give secretary blinken a platform. >> this is a 40,000-foot question. take it as a welcome to go back to where you started the session. and that was your vigorous critics who worry that the administration isn't doing enough leadership. some of that krit schl is obviously partisan but not all of it is. there are plenty of possible explanations for why that concern arises in so many

quarters. we're still conditioned by the cold war to expect instant results. take yourself to the 40,000-foot level and write us the history of this administration's transformation of american leadership. >> perfect end. first david's question on ukraine. >> what was that question? >> i think david's question is easier now. it was a land grab and it was done after -- it was intrain before the minsk agreement was signed and pretty far along. but then the cease-fire was supposed to take effect on sunday. it didn't. and the separatists grabbed what they could aided and abetted by russia. and in my judgment that needs to be accounted for going forward. i think it's clear also going forward that the cease-fire

needs to be fully implemented. the heavy weapons need to be pulled back. and i think you heard the secretary say -- i can't remember if it was today or yesterday, probably yesterday at this point. this is in europe. that absent those initial steps being taken we are going to have to deepen and extend the pressure on russia. and we're talking very closely to our european partners right now about next steps if these two very basic things, cease-fire, pull back of the heavy weapons, which were the initial steps agreed to by russia in the minsk implementation agreement don't take place. that's what we're looking for and we're looking for that in thement coing days. if it doesn't happen, we'll take account of that. on the 40,000-foot question boy, that would take a while to try to answer with any kind of adequacy. i guess i would say this. look, you could look at the specifics of how the

administration has handled different challenges, worked on different opportunities. you can look at the sort of big muscle movements of trying to bring to conclusion two large wars. you can look at the big muscled movements now of these trade agreements. which were they to happen, tpp and then ultimately ttip would cover 70% of global gdp. look at the big muscle movement of climate change and whether we get a significant step forward in paris at the end of the year. but i guess if i had to step back, i think what we've tried to do is to look at a few basically guiding principles that we've tried to put in place. and we obviously are not perfect if adhering to them. no one is. one is we tried to act with a sense of general purpose. and it's actually a purpose

that's probably extended from the beginning of the republican and that is to look out for the security of our citizens to try and advance their economic prosperity, to try and promote our values and maybe and added element, try and strengthen some of the institutions of international order. so we've worked to do that. we have tried to act and lead from a position of strength that that started with trying to get our economic house in order. i believe we're much stronger awrod when we have a strong economic position at home. we're much stronger now than we have been np pair ren thet cli, when i was in china in the previous week, i think jim will remember this web when the chie neels needle us saying maybe we shouldn't keep our none in united states it's so risky.

to which the vice president responded, go ahead and take it out. they didn't. it remained the safest place. the vice president said to the chinese leadership it's never a good bet to bet against the united states. and i think at least right now where we are, and i happily reminded ou host of this, he was right. not only with a strong economy but also with what remains and will remain the strongest military by far in the world despite sequestration. that doesn't make things easier but we have made the smart investments in that. third, we've tried, as a general principle, to actually live and lead from our values doing that at home to the extent possible. so you know bringing health care to 30 million more americans. that's a value that resonates around the world and i've heard it traveling around the world. but also on everything from working hard to close guantanamo, to ending torture, to other steps we've taken to

demonstrate that we're serious about living or values. we've tried to lead from the proposition that doing so with partners is the smarter and more effective way to advance our interest around the world. we spent a lot of time working on building partner capacity. working on cooperating with established partner bs, building the capacity of new ones and that has very positive moments and then also frustrations. it's a long term process. but we're infinitely better off doing it with partners where we can. we've also, as a fifth principle, i would say, tried to make the case that we needed to use all of the elements of our national power and not overrely on one muscle. and so the military element has remained critical, our economic strength has remained critical. but we've also sought to

energize our diplomacy, to advance development, to tackle some of these large underlying issues. and i think one of the hallmarks is going to be people debate this and dispute this, but the president believes strongly that it really doesn't make a great deal of sense to bog down tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of americans in foreign lands for decades at a time when there may be other means of dealing with the security threats that those places represent. so i think that's been something that -- and then finally i would say we're trying to lead with a sense of perspective. here's what i mean by that. the fact of the matter is this is a period of extraordinary change around the world with big fault lines that are moving. some good, some bad and some indifferent. it's what you make of it. and we see the fault lines very

acutely in the middle east in particular when you have changing relationships among states wean the old order and empowered individuals conflicts that may be ethnic or religious in nature with a lid coming off new technology that is bringing people together but also create creating greater vulnerabilities. and i think what's important at least for me that i take away from this, is that a lot of this is not about us. and we have to have some humility in thinking that we are either the cause of every problem or the solution. because so much of this has nothing to do with us. but the problem is it affects us. and so if we don't deal with it to the best of our ability it will bite us even harder. and beyond that, even if it's not about us and even if we can't fix everything, more than any other country on earth we have an ability, at least on the margins to shape change, to mitigate some of its challenges

and downsides and hopefully to maximize some its opportunities. so that, broadly speaking, is the perspective we've tried to bring to bear on these problems. that's very much how the president and the secretary would see them. you can run down the checklist of where it's worked where it hasn't work and where it's still a work in fro gres. but the main thing i leave you with is exactly where i started with. the notion that the united states is somehow no leading, that we're not more engaged in more places than ever before is belied by the simple thought experiment, take us out of the picture and how do these things look. i can toll you they look aheck of a lot worse. thanks. >> i want to thank the foundation for sponsoring these. i want to thank lois rice and i especially want to think deputy

secretary anthony blinken. thank you so much for what you do. tonight the supreme court oral argument in the case king versus burwell which was argued on wednesday and looked at the health care law and subsidies provided to those enrolled in federally run exchanges. lots of reaction took place outside the supreme court after the case was argued. here's part of that now. >> the states could establish an exchange but in their absence, the federal government was directed to set up an exchange. i met with governors starting with day one, and we talked about it. i don't think there was ever a hint that if governors chose not to have their exchange were their citizens wouldn't have subsidies. >> you would argue this is a matter of semantics? >> i think it is a matter of semantics as established by the state. seems to be the hinging language in the plaintiff's case. but there's nothing else in the

framework that would suggest this was meant to be a two country visit. >> what was the impression you got from the arguments. can you tell us that in. >> i thought again they were clear. the briefs i saw, the ruling i mean i thought the solicitor general did a very good job refuting every step along the way why this could not have ever been the inat the present time. and particularly the notice provision is very strong. over three years there was never a sense, if you don't do this, states this will be the consequence. >> you've had these conversations with governors, specifically prior to -- >> no. i said that we had conversations with governors starting day one from when the time was passed. there was never a sense -- i sat through a lot of the congressional testimony. i worked with the five committees. no one suggested that only if a state established an exchange would their citizens be entitled. >> so you say the intent is

clear -- >> do you feel more confident about this? >> i felt pretty confident about that too. i just think that this congress that passed the bill in 2010 that the president signed intended for a national program, nationally insurance companies have to play by different rules. nationally citizens are entitled to subsidy and nationally there's an individual responsibility. it doesn't say only if you choose to set up your exchange do these things happen. so you would have really the consequence of horribles. the other pieces would stay in place and the rest would fall back. i really have to go. i'm sorry. i really have to go. >> that was just some of the ó[ reaction following wednesday's argument before the supreme court in the case king versus burwell, which looks at the health care law and subsidies provided to those enrolled in federally run exchanges. the oral argument is coming up tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

tomorrow on washington journal, we look at february jobless numbers which saw unemployment fall to 5.5%. then former deputy attorney general william yo men discussed the justice department's two civil rights investigations in ferguson new jersey. >> after that eugene o'donnell talks about a white house task force report on policing. plus your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. washington journal live saturday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span 2's book tv, saturday night at 10:00 eastern, david morris on the history of post traumatic stress disorder that affects other 27 million

americans, including himself. and sunday night at 8:00 former navy seal sniper scott dahler rg a rgs that the obama administration is hurting us. and saturday, the komen ration of bloody sunday the march from selma to montgomery, alabama on saturday beginning at noon eastern. we're live from selma with your phone calls followed by the commemorative ceremony with president obama and congressman john lewis. then on sunday the coverage continues at the starting part from the selma-montgomery marches. let us knowñi what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. &

on twitter. last week the conservative political action conference held its annual meeting here in washington. the audience heard from several potential presidential candidates and other leading conservative voices including syndicated radio talk show host laura ingraham. remember the book a few years back, is conservative dead in no, not dead. we're very much alive. thank you very much. i was thinking about this race for the presidency in 2016 and i know some of you guys are -- i know jeb bush is about to speak. he's going to have a q and a with my friend sean hannity. i'm looking guard forward to that. how many of you are skeptical of another bush term?

wow. well, you guys, i think you have to look on the bright side.zia]uu a long way to go. it's anybody's nomination. don't let anyone tell you there's a coronation at hand. i think you have to look on the bright side. jeb could really explode the gender gap. i know you're saying, how is laura saying this. i think women could turn out in droves for jeb bush. what woman doesn't like a man who gives her a blank check at tiffanys? i mean, diamonds are a girl's best friend. that would be a great theme song for jeb bush. there's another way of looking at this. we could dispense with the whole nomination process all together just get -- i mean it's kind of inconvenient running for president, ve to do the dog and pony show, do all of the debates. why don't wemcv just call it quits and jeb and hillary can run on the same ticket? i mean, go through the list of

things that agree on. common core, amnesty, giving obama fast track trade authority, a lot of new trade deals with china, the surveillance culture. so i'm designing the bumper sticker. it could be krurks ush. 2016, what difference does it make? [ applause ] look in my opinion the whole process as become pretty frustrating, right? when you think about how this has gone down the. potential candidates come around. i think closed door meetings as opposed to you know, real conversations with the voters. i'm tired of the airbrush talking points. i'm tired of the back room deals. i know scott walker spoke so compellingly yesterday about the

fact that we need air in the room. we need a real colloquy with the american voters. because we've seen what happens when the elites are in charge without the people's input. they fail and fail and fail more. but we have to realize, my friends, you go into battle with the political system you have. and we already know that the media and much of the donor class is hostile to conservatives. and guess what? that's been true for a very long time. they were joking on msnbc this morning about scott walker's comment yesterday when he said, look, i can deal with isis. i deal with 100,000 union protesters. that's horrible for them say that. how could he say that. that's the worst thing scott walker could say. hi's not ready for prime time. you know what i remembered? my friend said in 1980 ronald reagan was campaigning and he said, look we know how to deal

with the soviets. he said i could deal with the soviets. after all, i knew how to deal with the old studio chiefs in hollywood, right? and the media just like with scott walker went after reagan saying how do you compare dealing with the soviet to the studio heads. and ronald reagan essentially said because i have a sense of humor and you don't. [ applause ] but it's not enough for us to rage at the darkness, right? i mean i think that's what we all find ourselves doing sometimes. and instead we have to really lift a candle in the darkness for our children, our grandchildren and the rest of the country. and i want to tell you about something that i'm launching with a great group of people today. and it's called citizens for the republic. and it's actually the 5013 c group that ronald reagan started many years ago and it was founded by him in 1977 and we've

revived it. we are launching this effort in order to beat back what i think have been sadly a domination by the elites of some of our education and outreach to young people on conservative issues. so you'll be able to go on my facebook page in a few moments and see what we're going to be doing at citizens for the republic. this is ronald reagan's 5013 c 4 and we're pledging to carry on his tradition of real conservatism, not rebranded conservatism, not remade conservatism, but ronald reagan conservatism. [ applause ] and don't worry, i'm still doing my radio show fox and abc and raising my three children and a thousand other things. i didn't feel like i had enough to do. but i feel like we need this now, especially as we're moving into 2016. i want to discuss what i think we should look for in a

presidential candidate. we have a lot of great people. i loved watching ben carson. i loved the back and forth with chris christie. ted cruz lights up the stage like nobody else. the idea that we should be conducting any type of coronation in the republican party today because 50 rich families decide who they any will best represent their interests, no way jose. [ applause ] merely having the right ideas however is not enough. a strong conservative has to be able to debate anyone anywhere on matters of policy and win. remember ronald reagan did that. if robert f. kennedy wanted to debate ronald ray gone wob he would debate rfk. he did that across the country. he wrote he refined his

thoughts. he studyiedstudied. he was a strong conservative. a strong conservative can explain his or her positions in a language that is precise and clear. we also need a candidate who is proud to be called a conservative. proud to stand with you. not a conservative who comes to cpac to check a box but a conservative who comes to cpac because they are conservatives. [ applause ] not a so-called conservative who nodded with the elite as few years ago back in 2008 when the elites were saying that conservatism was over, was dead. a full conserve tiff would kind of scratch his chin and kind of nod his head or her head and say, you know i didn't like the tone of what they were saying. i didn't like the message was too harsh. it was too blunt. my friends, when republicans

join the democrats at the alter of big government, and they might call it one year compassionate conservatism, they might call it american greatness conservatism. they might rebrand it as a right to rise conservatism. my friends peel back the onion. pull back the curtain. make sure that when candidates are asked simple and clear questions, a question like do you really think the american worker is lazy? do you really think the american workers aren't as entrepreneurial as new immigrants or illegal immigrants? do you really believe that we should repop late detroit with foreign workers in order to spur a new economic revival? make the candidate answer the question, not hide behind talking points.

[ applause ] conservatism has made this country better and we need and we deserve a presidential candidate who is excited to be part of this movement. and, you know, think about it, each time we've listened to the elites we're sorry we did so. they said reagan couldn't win, they were wrong. they said the soviet you oncould bnt defeated. they were wrong. they said inflation and high interest rates were permanent things. couldn't be eradicated. we had to learn with a new era of scarcity and they were wrong. the elite said we couldn't turn the american spirit around again and we thar wrong. you want more? the elite said we could raise taxes and no one would read our lips. but the american people did. and the elite said we couldn't win control of congress and newt

gingrich and his revolution were doomed but the american people thought otherwise. elite said we couldn't run the table in 2014 and that obamaism was the wave of the future that single moms would never turn out for conservatives and they were wrong. people thought otherwise. [ applause ] the elite said that unless conservatives embraced and passed comprehensive immigration refarm, ie amnesty after 2012 remember all those comments, that conservatives and republicans could never win in 2014. the elites were speck tack deck tack cue larry long. so when the going gets tough job you have to ask yourself which of these candidates is going to stand up and fight for me. the american worker. the american family.

the mothers and fathers who play by the rules. don't ask for handouts, don't ask for special treatment but don't want to be insulted by the elites. they want to be respected as human beings who have their own dreams the american dream. and american citizenship means something. it's not just a piece of paper. it's an ideal and it's a belief in the system of government that our framers started, the forefarthers fought for, that men and women sacrifice for every day. american citizenship is not something that should be so easily bargained away. american citizenship is ours. [ applause ] my friends, i am so proud to be a conservative. i am so proud that the usual suspects in the media are still

scoffing and snarking at what all of you are doing here at cpac. i want to tell you that you as you move forward through the rest of the day and you hear some really compelling remarks and panel discussions and q and a's, for a moment don't forget where this movement came from. it came from men and women who were told that conservatism was yesterday's news. when we know that a free people properly energized who are not regularly insulted or demeaned or left out of the debate the free people, people who make up the conservative movement are going to turn this country around. we are going to be part of a new revolution of growth and understanding and optimism and fun. because when you're free, you will have a lot more fun in your life. conservatism is not dour or gloom my. we're an an optimistic people. don't let anyone tell you otherwise. have a great time at cpac.

i'm proud of every single one of you. thanks so much. thanks. [ applause ] thank you so much. thank you. thank you. ♪ our coverage of cpac's annual meeting continues now with remarks from media research center director brent bozell. this is 20 minutes. good morning, cpac. let me first thank all of the organizers of cpac this year. i think they've done a terrific job. what do you think? [ applause ] >> let me get right to my talk. something happened last summer where most people weren't looking. the democrats quietly introduced senate joint resolution 19 to amend the first amendment. had it passed, it would have given congress incredible new

powers to limit political and policy speech. it would have given congress the power to regulate, even to prohibit movies, even television shows of a political nature that might influence elections. books deemed too political could be banned, as might be political editorials and newspapers. msnbc, cnn, fox all have political commentary. that might be construed as a corporate contribution and might have been forbidden as well. what about flyers distributed in the parking lots? bumper stickers? all are forms of communication, all theoretically could have been controlled by the state. this unthinkable outrage didn't pass, but something else didn't pass, either. senator ted cruz offered his solution, the first amendment. every single democrat on the senate judiciary subcommittee voted against it. something terrible is happening to our country.

the radical left now controls most levers of political and cultural power and is using both in a relentless campaign to destroy the last messages of freedom in america. tyranny is knocking at our door. consider, lois lerner and who knows what other officials in the obama administration illegally used the irs, the most feared arm of the federal government, to harass and even prosecute individuals. they were illegally coordinating these illegal activities with the department of justice the fec and who knows what other agencies. to cover up evidence, they destroyed government property. they lied at the white house and they committed perjury on capitol hill. watergate was a political paper cup by comparison. the radicals have shown their fangs. they will do anything, using any means at their disposal, legal or otherwise, to control our very freedom of speech. ponder this carefully.

when the state uses its power to destroy any political opposition, spying on and silencing through threats and criminal prosecution, is it all that different from the east german stazi? talk radio is arguably the strongest weapon in the conservative arsenal, so the radicals want it destroyed. they first tried to revive the fairness doctrine which, if enacted, would have put this industry out of business. when that effort was derailed, they returned with localism which rush correctly labeled as the back door to the fairness doctrine. the federal communications commission and the fec is out of control in their ability to control free speech. last summer it was making quiet preparations to put a federal monitor in every newsroom to assess stations' news philosophy and the process by which stories are selected.

this shocking abuse of governmental authority was exposed and stopped, but by no means have the radicals stopped. as i speak these words, the obama administration is making its play for the internet. it's quietly working to have a federal takeover of the infrastructure of delivering the internet. through net neutrality, it's giving government control of the internet, forcing it to comply by federal regulations. but perhaps most disturbing and underreported is this. the radicals want political speech on the internet to be declared political activity. as such, through yet another abusive arm of government, this time the federal elections commission, the federal government would actually decide what is and isn't acceptable as free speech on the internet. in the united states of america. now, if government by fiat

doesn't work, there are other ways for them to achieve results. they go personal. but radicals have set their sights on corporate america to silence it with a campaign of relentless personal harassment. the founder of bazilla donated $1,000 to a campaign to preserve the definition of marriage. in turn, left wing agitators declared them to be haters. the leftist media amplified the smear and in a short order, ike was forced out of his own party for supporting marriage. they would have succeeded had not the pro-life movement risen to his defense. religious groups are regularly targeted. the regulatory exchange council developed model legislation for the stand your ground policy. then trayvon martin was killed. the radicals saw the opportunity and they pounced.

they threatened to associate alex corporate donors with the policies that they declared had resulted in murder. in short order, it worked. the suits at wendy's, krafts mcdonald's, pepsi cola, coca-cola, among others, canceled their support and headed for the tall grass. character assassination is a powerful weapon for a ruthless movement without honor. ask rush limbaugh. the radicals know if they can e1q scare off enough advertisers, they can knock them off the air. then it's only a matter of time before all conservative talk radio is canceled by the nervous nellie station managers. but how to do it? their dishonesty time and again astonishes. in 2007 they declared that rush had labeled as phony soldiers any iraqi war veterans who opposed the war. it was a playñ tent lie. yet dozens of liberal leaders rose to fought that.

after a gruel struggle rush humiliated his foes, but it did not deter them until the means justify the means. last september they were back again with the parsing, again with the selective editing. again with the character assassination. now they accused him of condoning violence. this time they deployed a new tactic fáreleasing hundreds of thousands of tweets mercilessly, it ended when rush conducted his own investigation and determined that it was no more than 1 1 members of the underwear brigade using false identities and advanced digital technology to project a national outrage that was as fabricated as the accusation. the radicals have set their sights on silencing cultural conservatives in hollywood. brothers david and justice bingham were set to launch a new series on the hgtv network. then david made a fatal mistake during a radio interview.

in leviticus it says that death 1wz is the consequence for homosexual sin. however, jesus came and took the consequence of that sin upon himself on the cross. he had quoted scripture. the radical left has its own church and its own dogma, and this was a mortal sin. how dare you allow christian hatemongers on your network, they thundered to hgtv and they canceled the show. the star of duck dynasty who will be gracing the stage later this morning made similar statements about his christian faith. same leftist assault. but i guess it pays to be the highest paid star on cableof the most popular show on television. his fans exploded, and after a brief innocuous suspension, he was reinstated. hollywood.

no industry more radically preaches tolerance while striving for a censorship. friends of abe's was formed several years ago to espouse in hollywood. some members' name have been made public. grammar, so niece, voigt. dozens, maybe hundreds of others, remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. the radicals have set their sights on academia, silencing conservative voices all over america. in a recent survey of 409 universities, 62% now have restrictive codes or policies that serve to stifle free speech. at vanderbilt university, a christian news application to organize on campus was deferred, because its rules stated a member must hold christian beliefs. at the university of carolina, chapel hill, a christian student group came on fire from legislation who dismissed a student from its ranks who wasn't christian.

at another university, the student newspaper was forced to drop its name, the bullet, because it propagated violence. at drake university, analysts were destroyed. what sin had they committed? this paper had feature aid pro-life ad. at university of massachusetts in amherst, the conservative student paper was stolen. when conservative students protested, the university responded, as only a university from massachusetts would, the conservative paper was banned from campus. at the university of minnesota, a professor encouraged students to destroy all copies of the conservative papers. at oregon state, the university had to pay $101,000 in legal fees after university officials admitted they junked conservative papers. at the university of california, two sweet, petite high school girls pro-life were physically attacked by a thuggish professor with their pro-life signs destroyed while the professor and their aides taunted them. on many college campuses,

conservatives live in fear. the radicals have set their sights on christianity itself. the new mexico human rights commission levied a $6600 fine against a woman after she declined to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. in oregon, the owners of a christian bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple and are facing fines in excess of $150,000. in idaho, two christian ministers who own a wedding chapel were ordered to perform same-sex weddings or face jail time, potentially more than three years, as well as a $1,000 fine for each day of non-compliance. in houston, the outspoken lesbian mayor ordered city attorneys to issue subpoenas to local pastors demanding they surrender any speeches, writings or sermons on jend identity homosexuality or even simply

mentioning her. they have preached left wing politics from the pulpit for decades. but when conservative pastors tried to do this on sunday, look what happened. the radical group sued. not the pastors, mind you, but the irs for not adequately prosecuting the pastors. the irs dutifully acquiesced, and the irs agreed to monitored sermons for content. they hired bodyguards for their protection. in america. the website of the radical group includes what they call a hate map, pinpointing the jewish radicalizations of pro-life organizations. a leftist gay militant who visited that sight decided to attack the research council for its support of chick-fil-a.

he entered the lobby, pulled out a gun and shot an frc security guard who managed to disarm him. he was carrying a bag of chick-fil-a sandwiches. he admitted he was going to kill as many frc employees as possible and place a sandwich next to them. the radicals are attempting to rewrite history. in seattle, columbus day has been officially canceled and replaced with indigenous people's day. in denver, troublemakers that move on organize massive protests against school board members for promoting patriotism in the public school. history books are being rewritten to erase america's grounding in the judeo christian ethic. america's role as leader of the free world and the very idea of american exceptionalism. the reagan tax cuts caused the reagan deficits. his disdain for homosexuals resulted in the aids epidemic. and as for reagan ending the cold war, what pure nonsense.

bill clinton declared this, gorbachev is showing the west by showing that the soviet threat isn't what it used to be and once more that it never was. through the common core program they're teaching children that george washington was no different than palestinian terrorists. and that thomas jefferson should be declared as a hypocrite why writing the declaration of independence while he owned slaves. it labels those who fought in the revolutionary war american mobs and faced the tea party too radical for some. if a palestinian suicide bomber kills several dozen israeli teenagers in an israeli restaurant, is that an act of terrorism or wartime retaliation against israeli government policies and army actions? david roberts writes for the radical left wing blog grist. he doesn't much care for

conservatives who question global warming. when we've finally got serious about global warming, he writes, we should have war crimes for these bastards, some form of nuremburg. it's come to this. there is only one scientific position that's permissible in the debate. there is only one morally acceptable position on gay rights. freedom is oppression, morality and immorality, and the washington redskins is hate speech. we can no longer trust god in our coins, pray in our schools or keep a crucifix uncovered when the president is speaking in front of it. our beliefs are no longer representative, they're offensive. what is hateful should be criminalized. do not believe i exaggerate. national surveys shows that 51% of democrats now support that. webster defines fascism as a tendency toward or actual exercise in strong autocratic or dictatorial control.

culture fascism has arrived in america. let us understand this soberly and unequivocally. ladies and gentlemen, we know this to be true. so it begs the question, what is our response? is it to surrender to the fascists? perhaps only gradually? certainly grudgingly, but ultimately surrender nonetheless? we've been retreating for decades. do we accept a new reality of a transformed society where freedom is an ever more distant memory? is that your gift to your progeny after so many millions of men and women gave of their blood and their very lives to give you the gift of the free society in the history of man. no, by god, tell me it's not. i do not ask you to defend yourself well and retreat. i ask you to stop the retreat, turn around and face the sound of the guns. it's time for us to be

intolerant. it's time to stop tolerating and remove from office those men and women of either political party who will not fight boldly and unequivocally to restore freedom. [ cheers and applause ] it's time to stop tolerating those who believe government is by and for the thousands of lobbyists and professional consultants prowling the halls of government and feasting on our liberties like rats. do not tolerate fascist academia. it's so easy to end that scourge. drain the swamp. stop sending your children and your money to these indoctrination camps. do not tolerate the sensors, do not tolerate the sensors in the news or entertainment media. give voice to your beliefs, loudly, cheerfully, proudly, defiantly. watch america embrace you. do not tolerate the attacks on conservative leaders.

take to the rooftops and champion them. look for every opportunity to be politically correct. drive those radicals crazy. make a vow this december everywhere you go with everyone you meet. it will not be a happy holiday. it will be merry christmas. [ cheers and applause ] we have weapons. we have weapons. we can communicate with millions of americans through the power of technology. use those weapons. tell your story. tell our story. tell them what america once was, what america should be and what america will be. our founders will be vindicated. your progeny will be grateful and the almighty, i think, will be well pleased. god bless you and god bless america. [ applause ]

♪ fox news host sean hannity also spoke to a an audience during last week's annual cpac meeting that took place just outside of washington. this is 20 minutes. >> hello cpac. all right. i got something. how y'all doing? yes. all right, we got plenty more footballs. how y'all doing? why don't y'all get closer and

i'll hand you the football. everyone, come on in. you've been sitting, everyone's tired. look at these gorgeous, great american girls. i wish we could get them on shot there. look at these three girls in the green here, how cute and adorable and their bigger sister in purple. i'm just guessing. that is the future of america right there and that's why we're going to fight so hard. i have -- let me start with some good news. thank you. don't worry. all you that get closer, the odds of you getting a football are much higher. i, i have some good news to start. america, america, we will fundamentally transform it back to the great country it was. our long nightmare, our long nightmare of lawlessness and obamacare and weakness as it relates to foreign policy, and economic nightmare, is coming to an end and it's going to take every single solitary one of you in this room to make that happen. you all with me to join in and

do that? you know. you know, one of the things -- let me ask, because we have so many candidates. i am probably the perfect person to be here in one sense, because i'm like all of you. i have not decided who should be our nominee yet. hang on. we can play -- all right, who wants marco rubio, senator rubio? senator ted cruz? senator rand paul? who -- i'm going to forget somebody's name and they're going to be really mad. who likes governor bobby jindal? former governor rick perry? how many people like former senator, rick santorum? he's going to be speaking today. who likes ben carson? all right?

we got a deep bench. who likes governor scott walker? wow, very impressive. as my dear friend matt just told you, i am optimistic -- there's my friend matt -- and i believe that you, this process now starts. you remember how you felt the day after mitt romney lost? okay. i know how you all feel because my tv ratings, the second day after he lost, you all abandoned me for like six months. because why? we were all depressed, right? but the process starts now. right now, and i am convinced that somebody that you will hear from this stage during this conference, which i'm so honored to be a part of with its rich history of advancing the conservative movement in america are going to be right on this stage and you are going to make everybody in this room watching

on cspan and fox news, you are going to make that happen. i applaud all of you for your hard work and your efforts. you are the grass roots. doesn't it get a little old, we're at the point where -- i start, i talked about this with marco rubio today. i'm going to be back on stage with donald trump and jeb bush later. you all staying? okay. jeb bush, any supporters? any chris christie supporters? who did i forget that's running? who? carly fiorina supporters? >> ralph nader. >> ralph nader. security, can you get this guy out of here? what's that? hannity's not running in 2016. donald trump, any trump supporters? okay.

all right. you know what, though? think of how these years have been. if every single thing -- we're in the seventh year of the obama presidency and he's blaming fox news, karl rove, rush limbaugh, glenn beck, sean hannity and when all else fails, who does he blame? right. you know, it's sort of like if the dog bites, if the bee stings, if you're feeling sad whose fault is it? nic knack patty whack, give the dog a bone. after you give the dog a bone, it bites you. whose fault is is it? right? some of you were drinking heavily last night. you woke up with a headache this morning. it's not your fault. it's not jack daniel's fault, it's not budweiser's fault. whose fault is it?xd

if you're stupid enough, let's say i had a bee's nest at my house. if i was stupid like a liberal and i took a baseball bat and i knocked down the wasp nest and the bees sting me. it wouldn't have been my fault. wouldn't have been the wasp fault. all right. so, we have a young, good-looking crowd here at cpac, right? by the way, i am so glad you young people are here. you are the future and we are going to make this country good for you. we are going to do it. i can look out in the crowd, i kind of have x-ray fox vision. some of you women, you don't know it yet, but you're pregnant. it's not your fault. it's not his fault. whose fault is it? no. hannity, your friend, bill clinton, i can't blame bush for that one. all right. i want to get serious in this

sense. my -- you all -- we all have a similar story. it's the american story. all four of my grandparents, god bless their soul, they came to america, they had no money. they had a hope that they could build a better life for their children and their grandchildren. my father grew up really, really poor in bedford sty in brooklyn, new york. and my grandmother, his wife, died a couple of months after childbirth. complications from childbirth. my dad had a tough life. he fought in world war ii for four years. and it was a really big deal when he got that 50 by 100 lot. how many of you grew up in that kind of neighborhood? right? a lot of us. the it was a cape cod house and three older sisters. one bathroom. definition of hell on earth.ka=

spent a lot of times running out to the back, but -- i did in the bushes. it was bad. it's the bush's fault. right. hang on. you deserve a football for that. anybody that gives the speaker a joke that's good, we get a laugh, you get a football. but i -- the way i look at my life, i have been blessed to live in this country. blessed by god that i really feel that i stand on the shoulders of these people that were risk takers that were willing to leave their country behind in the hope of what this dream of america is. and i stand on my father's shoulders. i think my father -- he died six months after i started at fox.

if he were here today, i don't think he would feel so successful because his dream wasn't for himself. it was for his children. they sacrificed to send us all to catholic schools. they didn't have a lot of money. it was a big deal that they sacrificed that money. how many of you have similar stories? right? so many of us in this room. even you guys in the back, hello. right? here's what i want to tell you. i want to give you a little bit of bad news, then a little bit of good news. what do you want first? the good news or the bad news? i'm going to give you the bad news. i look at this audience and i'm looking right around this stage and i see one young face after another. i'm looking all out in the this crowd. which gives me hope for the future. here's the problem. i never thought there would be a time in america where 50 million of our fellow citizens, just shy of 50 million, live in poverty in america today. they're struggling to feed their kids. i never thought that we would have nearly 50 million americans on food stamps in america. this is the land of opportunity. this is the land of plenty.

it's almost 20 million more people than when barack obama became the president of the united states. we can do better. now -- i never thought there would be a time in american history -- remember when obama was running in 2007 and 2008? by the way, i hate to say i told you so, but i told you so to some of -- not this crowd, obviously. all the liberals that are going to be writing about the speech and don't like me. i never thought he said about $9 trillion in debt, that it was irresponsible and unpatriotic. right? he is now, by the time he leaves office, he will accumulate almost as much debt as every other president before him combined. add to that, $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. the american people are needlessly suffering because of bad politics in washington and

bad governance. now, the other bad news i have to say to you young people, i feel bad because this may become the first time in american become the first time in american history where our generation leaves this country in worse shape than that which we found it which was the antithesis of what our grandfathers, our grandmothers, our fathers and mothers wanted for us. they wanted us to do better than they did. my hope for my children is that they live in an america that has more opportunity, more prosperity, more success more wealth. jack kemp always used to say it's not a zero sum game, that a rising tied lifts all boats. i look at right now, i never thought in my lifetime that the world would be battling al qaeda, boko haram, isis islamic jihad, hezbollah, hamas, radical

islamists that -- you know newt gingrich made a great line. he said they have been at war with us since 1979 and the iranian hostage crisis. right? the 9/11 commission report said they were at war with us, we were not at war with them. we now -- i never thought in my lifetime that i admire the king of jordan. after one pilot was burned to death he opened up -- [ applause ] he opened up the gates of hell and fury on the radical islamists that killed that poor innocent pilot. i never thought i would admire the president of egypt who went before imams and said you have got to take back this religion from radicals that are hijacking it it. [ applause ] and that when 21 coptic christians martyred and

assassinated in cold blood, that he would unleash hell and fury on radical islamists that he identified. and this is the sad part. the day that the president gave a statement about a fellow american by the name of james foley. how many of you saw the video? i saw it. who was beheaded by these radical modern-day frankly nazis. brutally. it's a level of evil unprecedented. that the president would give a statement statement, turn around, and 30 seconds later be on a golf course. unbelievable. shameful. yes, sir. shameful. i never thought i'd have a president that would try and tell the american people and convince them the islamic state is not islamic. i never thought i'd have a president that when 21 christians were murdered didn't identify them as christians.

i never thought i'd have a president with his radical background and associations which you know what i feel on that. i won't go into greater detail. the world right now is craving answers, solutions. the answers and solutions i have always believed as a conservative are going to come from us. i started the conservative solution caucus in 2014. i wanted the republicans to run on ideas. everybody in america's made up their mind about barack obama. okay? he's gone. thankfully in two years. i want -- as somebody -- well as somebody who's not made up their mind who is going to be president i wanted to just give you a few points on what i am looking for in the next president of the united states. there's a great -- one of my favorite movies is "braveheart."

you like "braveheart"? freedom! i love, there's a moment in that movie william wallace and sir robert the bruce william wallace turns to the elites, the nobles, and he says -- they're outside. "i see strength in you. i see strength in you. unite us. unite us." now, i know there are some people in this room that identify themselves as tea party conservatives. i identify myself as a reagan tea party conservative. that's where i stand. i know there are people maybe we view as establishment republicans. so what i am proposing is this. we are in such a tough position as a country. these problems are so great. and i want to make sure we live up to our responsibility to leave a country better than we found it. i propose the following things. i want to make sure, i would like to see the establishment and the tea party unite. [ cheers and applause ] okay?

you're skeptical. i'm going to change your skeptical -- if the republican party is honest if you are establishment or you are tea party, do you not agree it is immoral to accumulate $18 trillion in debt and rob future generations of their inheritance? we all agree? [ applause ] i like the penny plan. i like a balanced budget amendment. instead of baseline budgeting cut one penny out of every dollar for six years. we balance the budget because it's morally right for our children and future generation. [ applause ] that's something i think the tea party, conservatives, and establishment, we all ought to agree on. i want the next president of the united states to commit to eradicating radical islamists. not degrade. i want -- i think republicans, tea party, conservative

establishment aught to agree that radical islamists equal the modern -- they are the modern-day version of the 100 million souls we lost in the last century stalinism, fascism, communism, nazism, and we all ought to agree that this cancer we must rid the world of this evil. do we all agree? [ cheers and applause ] i think as conservatives, establishment, tea party conservatives i think we can all agree on another thing. i'm tired of america being dependent on countries that hate our guts. right? for our energy. we have more energy with coupled with new technology, hydro fracking, horizontal drilling. we have more resources than the entire middle east combined. let's -- we all ought to agree establishment, toe party, let us

break this monopoly. let america commit to being energy independent in five years. ought to be a goal. [ applause ] we have some of the best and brightest minds. we send them to some of the worst schools that america has ever seen. how about especially inner city america, i say that establishment conservative, tea party unite on this principle. let you, the parents, choose the school that you want to send your children to. right? [ applause ] i know there's a lot of issues involving immigration. some people want comprehensive immigration reform. some like me, i prefer to secure the borders first. it's like tax. it's like tax increases and spending cuts. you always get the tax increase, never the spending cut. you're going to get amnesty. you're never going to get the border secure. i would think we can agree on one thing first.

let's secure america's borders for the safety and security of the american people. [ applause ] i -- i just want to say this. we have 92 million americans out of the workforce. 50 million americans in poverty. nearly 50. nearly 50 million americans on food stamps. we have evil in our time that needs to be defeated. this is my pledge to you. as somebody who's undecided. on both my radio and television program on fox news channel, i promise you this. as somebody who has not made up his mind, i am going to give access to every single solitary candidate as often as i can, as often as they'll come by the end of the process, i will ask them every question i can think of and then i am putting this all in your hands and what i'm saying to you and challenging you is to dig deep, find the

person that, that absolutely understands that it is the destiny of this country to stand as a beacon of hope and freedom for the entire world. no country has given more to the world to advance the cause of freedom than this country, the united states of america. and i am just saying that i believe somebody at this conference will be the next president of the united states of america. and you're going to make that decision. and i wanted to say one last thing and wrap up now. okay. sorry, matt. i want to say one last thing. we owe it to the young people in this room. we owe them that we are going to work day and night, blood, sweat tears. we owe it to the soldiers who have sacrificed their lives,

their limbs in the defense of liberty and freedom. we owe it to them that when god calls us home sooner for me than a lot of you young people, when that happens, that we leave them with what president reagan described as that shining beacon city on a hill. there's nothing america can't do and it begins in this room and i pledge this to you. we will work day and night, if you all commit in your hearts, that you are going to fight for your country, fight for the cause of liberty, fight for your constitution, fight against lawlessness, stand up and defend our troops, fight for the principles we outlined here today, if we start on the points of agreement, we can make this once more, the great and i believe america is god destined. and we'll make america once again the greatest country god