then, panels on ballot initiatives and political bias on social media. then later, a senate hearing on financial literacy and retirement. at the steamboat freedom conference held last month in colorado, conservatives discussed the state of the fbi and public confidence in the agency. this is two hours and 15 minutes. all right, if you read the wall street journal on a regular basis -- and if you don't, you should, it is my required daily reading every day, you have no doubt seen some op-ed's written by our next speaker about what is

going on at the fbi. there are well-publicized problems. tom baker is an international law enforcement consultant. he served as an fbi special agent for over 30 years in a variety of positions facing the challenges of crime and terrorism. he has extensive experience with management and training issues, having served as an instructor at the fbi academy in quantico, virginia. he has been published in numerous journals, nationally and internationally. he served at the embassy in australia, where he was responsible for maintaining u.s. law enforcement interests in a large part of the asia- pacific area. he was assigned as the legal at cachet in paris, where he developed expertise not just in western europe, but in much of africa, as well. he has been involved in the planning of events, worldwide.

he was the american representative for the security task force for the calgary olympics. in paris he was an advisor for world cup stopper. in australia, he implemented the pacific training initiative, a successful program to help the police of the pacific island nations. he has a masters degree in public administration from the john jay college of criminal justice. he and his wife, anne, are here, both of them this weekend. we are happy to have them up from aspen, where they live. let's give a warm steamboat welcome to tom baker. >> thank you, for that

wonderful introduction. for the past two years or so, americans have started to lose faith in the fbi. an institution that most americans held in very high regard. i know it was held in high regard around the world. i spent most of my adult life in the fbi. this loss of faith really affects me and troubles me. by the way, that was my first seven seconds, how do you like me so far? i always listen to my friend, melanie. i think a lot of the explanations and the problems and the lapses that have happened can be explained by a cultural change that happened after the september 11 attacks.

when america was attacked on september 11, bob moeller, by the way his name is not pronounced as if it were germanic. he became director of the fbi, only five days before the september 11 attack, which was on a tuesday. a tuesday morning, as everybody remembers. on saturday morning, he was summoned to camp david. president bush was at camp david with his key advisors. the secretary of defense, secretary of state, condoleezza rice, the head of the cia. and bob mueller was called

there to report on what the fbi did. at least that is what he thought. he showed up with a report and was exceedingly proud of what the fbi had done, because what the fbi did in just 3 1/2 days is what they do very well, investigate. he came with a report to camp david that saturday morning, after only 3 1/2 days, and in this really is remarkable. those of you involved in things like this would realize it. the fbi had identified all 19 hijackers, their pedigree, their travel pattern, their financing, their associates, where they got in this country, where they rented cars, who gave them what, where they had been staying. in 3 1/2 days. and he presented that with a great deal of pride.

mueller is a very proud man. at the end of this presentation, expecting, like i got here, a little bit of praise and thanks, president bush just looked at him and said, i don't care about that, i want to know how you are going to prevent the next one. you can imagine how humiliated mueller was. he came back and now we know, for reasons that may have seemed justified at the time, he undertook to change the fbi into what he characterized later as an intelligence driven organization. this is significant. the fbi, almost from its beginning, did have a counterintelligence function inside the united states, but the culture was always one of a law enforcement agency. we were always told that there

was one advantage that we had, that our domestic intelligence agency is actually a law enforcement agency. that is not the case in canada or the united kingdom or almost anywhere else in the world. as a law enforcement agency, you operate under the confines of the constitution and you have a certain mindset. it is one of truth seeking, truth telling, fact-finding. in law enforcement, you have to find the facts, find the evidence, because at the end of the day you have to stand up before a grand jury or a judge or a magistrate and swear to tell the truth. but at an intelligence agency, they deal in what they call it, estimates. best guesses. they operate by telling lies. people in intelligence agencies

who have had a career, they will tell you this becomes a problem for them. they get used to telling lies. it just rolls off their lips. as mentioned in the introduction, i spent 12 years abroad at the end of my career in u.s. agencies and i had to deal with various intelligence people on a regular basis. what i found, and it was the experience of others around the world, we had a very difficult time with our counterparts. because, they lied to our hosts. i was always assigned in an allied country. they lied to other people in the embassies and they lied to us, easily, whenever it suited them. in one post i was at, the chief of station, that is the head of the cia at the embassy, he told me he had no problem lying to

an ambassador. to me, my law-enforcement mentality, that was just shocking. i couldn't imagine lying to the ambassador. this is what they do. because of their different business model and their different way of doing things, they sometimes do get in trouble. i will give you one example of trouble. it is called circular reporting. that happens to intelligence agencies when they get information from a contact or an allied service and then they hear it somewhere else, so they think they have gotten cooperation for that information. now, sometimes a badly intended originator will deliberately do that, but often times it is just human error. you tell someone something, the information gets passed around, and all of a sudden you have others telling you the same thing.

it is really the same information, it is just rephrased and reworded. that happened in the steel dossier. it happened twice in the steel dossier. the first thing, the dossier itself, was made up of a lot of circular reporting. this is not been emphasized in the news. he was reporting second and third source information. that same information had been flowing back and forth between some of his friends. sidney blumenthal, another guy, jonathan weiner, who works at the state department, they had been exchanging the same stories amongst themselves for some time, so the dossier itself was made up of circular reporting. then, when it was put in the

affidavit for the fisa warrant, the cooperating information cited was a news story that provided the same information. now we know that that information came from steele. he told it to some reporters and it wound up in some journalism. so, circular reporting is a problem for intelligence agencies, it should not be a problem for a law enforcement agency, especially when you have to swear for a warrant. how did we get there? one of the first things that mueller did as he changed the management structure of the fbi in response to the september 11 attack. typically, cases are managed in the field. there is a case agent, a field

officer, a special agent in charge. they review the information and there are other levels of review and correction. what he did was funded into headquarters, then it was continued with the investigation of hillary clinton's emails and the counterintelligence investigation of the trump campaign. why is that so bad? what happens is you then had a very small group at the top of the fbi. you have heard some of the names. making all of the decisions. you know in your own business, if you get the same three people in the room all the time, they are going to reinforce each other. we all need someone to correct this. even the journalists here have an editor to correct them. when there are three people,

they just reinforce each other. the explanation that you get, these are sensitive investigations. they want to have politically sensitive people making the decisions on top. in the past in the fbi, we had politically sensitive investigations. some of you i am sure can remember ab scam. that investigation, using undercover operatives, seven u.s. congressman from both parties and one u.s. senator went to federal prison. you don't get things more politically sensitive than that. but, this is part of the reason things went off the track. everybody acknowledges that things went off the track.

the two areas i can talk about that demonstrate this, one is the fisa courts and one is the relationship with congress. some of you probably know this in some detail. fisa is the foreign intelligence surveillance act. it came into effect in 1978 and it was a reform to introduce some regularity in the way that intelligence was looked at and investigated inside the united states. there had been no guidelines for the fbi or anyone else. it was decided, definitively again in 1978, that the cia and the nsa cannot operate inside the united states. so, the fbi is the only you telogen's agency that can operate in the united states. so, it is strictly defensive on the part of the fbi. now, here is something that is

a secret. the classified information. almost everyone in this room knows it and anyone who has read a book or newspaper knows it. but, the american government very closely monitors one or two countries in particular. now, wiretapping is illegal in the united states. how do they do that? the point of the fisa act was to provide a legal vehicle for the fbi to monitor our enemies are those we have suspicions about, legally. the foreign intelligence surveillance act, the information from that was never to be used in court. you monitor a particular embassy, you get this information and it is passed to the decision-makers. they get that information. this has been going on for 40 years. it is never meant to be used in

a court of law, information from the fisa act, it is not originally intended for that purpose. it also, under george webster, who became the director of the fbi in 1978 and then became the director of the cia, it was never intended to monitor americans. if you suspected an american of being an agent of a foreign power, the appropriate way to monitor that american is using the espionage act, which is a criminal statute under title 18. the fisa act is under title 50. two completely different things. if you suspect an american, you start an espionage case on them. the information you get from monitoring them can be used in court. in the past three decades there have been over 70 successful espionage prosecutions of

americans. there was only one that was not successful. the guy that told me that was john martin, who ran that section for a long time. that is the appropriate response. what happened, things got so far off the track that they started a fisa warrant, as we all know now, against this fellow, carter page, in 2016, using the information in the steele dossier to monitor this american citizen. it is shocking. this could never get by under previous directors of the fbi. relations with congress. the cia has had bad episodes over 40 or 50 years with congress, where they lie to congress. you're not supposed to lie to congress. so they set up a group in

congress you could tell secrets to. the gang of eight. they are these people from both parties that have been cleared to get information. briefly, in my career, i worked at the office of public affairs at fbi headquarters. the fbi always responded promptly to congress. we got things back to congress. the most important people for us in congress where the appropriation committees. but, the house intelligence oversight committee, the senate intelligence oversight committee, you get it to them, you get it to them as quickly as possible. the situation we have over the last two years, where congress is subpoenaing the information, that is unthinkable. a lot of the documents, nunez,

in particular wanted, were delayed for six and nine months before getting it and they still haven't provided an unredacted version of the communication from 2016 that initiated the counterintelligence probe. so we still don't know the actual reason why that probes started. they have been holding that back. it would be inconceivable that this would happen under past directors. and the gang of eight exists to get this kind of information. now, comey, didn't even tell congress that there was this counterintelligence investigation. it started on july 31. it wasn't until march 2016, -- 2017, when asked about this

that he told congress, the reason he didn't tell them is that the case is too sensitive. that is the reason there is the gang of eight, to hear sensitive information. the origin of that is still being held back. what do we do about this? it is a cultural problem. some things have already been changed. we have a new director. we have a new deputy director. we have a new associate deputy director. peter strzok will be fired. he has been taken out of everything and is undergoing personnel actions. mccabe has been fired and may be prosecuted. the head of congressional affairs was fired. the chief of staff, he has a new chief of staff. that is a beginning. after the director acknowledged there were problems, he will

introduce training for bias and has appointed the new associate deputy director, a paul a. bat. most people have a lot of confidence, so we can be hopeful. there has to be a cultural change. when i was a special agent, the constitution and the importance of following the constitution was rolled into us, repeatedly. now in the fbi you have a segment, about 2000 people, since 2011, a new position called intelligence analyst. ia, like they call the agents essays. they don't get out, they don't

meet people. they are hardly ever in a position where they will swear to a court or interview people lord -- people or conduct a that regard. i think they are going to have to get it. they will have to reinvigorate the attitude. change the culture, get us back to a law enforcement agency. we can still conduct counterintelligence operations, but with the mentality of law enforcement. no more fisa warrants on american citizens. that is just awful. the fbi can do a lot about that, internally. congressman nunez has said that is something he is going to look at after the next election, reform pfizer. the fbi itself has to reform its relationships with congress.

under mueller, a lot of non- agent people were directly hired into key positions. one was the assistant director in charge of congressional relations. mueller hired an outsider. he might have been a nice person. i think he was a republican. a state senator from the middle of the country. they wanted a politician dealing with the congressman. it didn't work. he doesn't know the culture. the congressmen are looking to hear from the fbi, they don't want to hear from another politician appointed as a go- between. in the past, we had special agents, most of them were attorneys, in that position. i think that is a specific personnel change that can and needs to be made. but, the key thing is training. getting back to the constitution, judge william

webster used to tell us, and tell us repeatedly, he would repeat it in every speech, we have to do the job the american people expect of us, but we have to do it in the way the constitution demands we do it. that needs to be reiterated. now, when i went through new agent training. that is something i shouldn't say, in my day, but the fact is, i am not an attorney. about half the people in my class were attorneys. we got an awful lot over 14 weeks on constitutional and criminal law. i found it fascinating. i enjoyed it, i loved it, i soaked it up like a sponge. half of these other fellas have heard most of this before. at the end, we had a legal instructor. this went on for years. he would give us a gift and the

gift he gave us was this copy of the united states constitution. and he told us to take it and put it in our breast pocket and keep it with us and always remember it is there. when you are sitting in that interview room and knocking on that door to exercise a search warrant, remember the constitution and you will never get in trouble. a lot of us, i did for a while, actually kept this constitution with us, close to our heart. it may sound like a simple or corny thing, but i think they need to go back to giving out the constitution and give it to those analysts who are sitting in the back room, just making best guesses. >> i think at some point, phil is going to start asking questions. okay.

do you want me to move this away? >> we would like to welcome to the stage, phillip wegmann, our newest fellow. he has a commentary writer for the washington examiner and he is going to do an interview with tom baker. welcome. >> okay. time is short, so i guess we will get started. after listening to mister baker's speech -- can you hear me now? am i on now? >> you are on. >> well, after listening to agent baker speak, i am particularly grateful for your remarks, because for anyone who

has been following the news for the last year and a half and anything related to the fbi or russia, it can make your head spin. this is more than helpful, so thank you so much. >> well, i am honored to be interviewed by an award winner. the first interview in your new position. the mac you are too kind. first of all, because of your experience in the office, in the fbi working for congress, i wanted to ask you about their relationship with congress, post 9/11, and after the culture shift that was put in place by mueller. do you think the fbi have started to see themselves as a distinct agency, that, for whatever reason, needs to be beyond the purview of congress. you think that is a new culture that is emerging?

>> beyond the purview of congress is new. it is a new problem. it was unthinkable to us. it wasn't an issue that you needed a subpoena, it was how fast can you get them, when you are asked. the fbi always has thought of itself as an independent agency. there were times when there was a rub with the department of justice itself. but this is new, yes. >> along those lines, what is your reaction and the reaction of some of your colleagues, about what peter strzok was saying, when he texted that he loathes congress. you think that is at risk of spreading? >> i think it is disgusting.

that whole series of texts, that is available online, too, including a second batch of them that originally could not be found, when you read those, it is disgusting. it is very clear that they were biased against trump. there is no question. that is actually why bob mueller removed him from the special counsel investigation. remember, the fbi had its own counterintelligence investigation. until well into 2017, when it was taken over as the special counsel investigation. other things in those text, they go back and forth. a total lack of discipline, a lack of character.

they used horrible language, which is not blocked out. a lot of things are redacted. talking about members of congress who are concerned. talking about the working agents in the fbi in the field offices. the disdain they show for them. they don't think strategically like we do. this is what they keep reinforcing. and there love affair. the three of them, we are so wonderful and we know everything. once again, it is people reinforcing each other. there have been rules in the department of justice and the fbi about the use of personal reasons and property. the cell phone and copy machines or whatever you can imagine. as a lot of things were at the

fbi, the punishment for these infractions were draconian. you nearly placed yourself in jeopardy. janet reno came up with a role which was called the reno role that occasional or exceptional use of government property for personal reasons would incur no jeopardy. what she had in mind was the situation that happens particularly in the fbi and people are working and have to pick up the kids of they have to text on the government instrument to take care of this problem that came up. that's what she had in mind and the people that enforced in the fbi that is had they viewed it. i'm sir janet reno never had in mind these thousands of discussing -- disgusting text messages between these characters. that is another thing informed

when we had to reinstitute the reno role. >> one of the things i noticed that you did not mention in your list of potential reforms with potential actions were taken is something that i heard up a lot about. there was a push inside congress that they were -- there was in impeachment initiative. that he needed to get the boot. do you think of it was to come to that that we would be jeopardizing any sources or information. >> i actually once past that resolution.

the origin of the counterintelligence investigation began on july 31. as you know i wrote an article about this just a little over a week ago drawing on what a lot of people were telling me and what i was talking to. they have acknowledged this. that is the origin and the originating communication is being held back to protect sources which is a legitimate reason. however the gang of eight exists to heal those things. it is eight people. it is the majority and the

minority leader and the chairman and ranking numbers of the intelligence committee. they all have in-depth backgrounds and they have all signed agreements and everything else. they are supposed to be briefed on any particular ongoing insensitive investigation. there is a quarterly briefing set up with both committees and this is still being withheld from them. this is really unheard of. i know for a fact that inside the fbi right now that is a really big argument as to whether to reveal this last piece of information. which is going to be very embarrassing. it will be embarrassing not just for the fbi. the origin of this investigation clearly goes back to the united kingdom.

another thing about the origin he was the assistant director until about two years ago. to initiate a counterintelligence investigation under these reforms going back to 1978 there was a protocol set up called the attorney general guidelines and you have to have sufficient predicate information and articulate pack in order to open and counterintelligence investigation and there were stipulations if it was against an american entity in this case the trump campaign committee. everybody looking at this and a lot of stuff has come out there is no way you can look at and say there is enough predicate to open an investigation. director, he and his memoir that is out he cites only the

conversation that papadopoulos had in london. you go back and look at that. that they had a month or two earlier so papadopoulos relates this to the australian ambassador in london at the time also, you have carter page meeting with his other academic in england and everything points back there so the original information most likely we know now came to the fbi from the cia. former director john brennan has bragged that he got every scrap of intelligence that he

should get and passed it to the fbi. it was from one or two of three british intelligence organizations. is still the most likely explanation of what happened. it is also the most dangerous and embarrassing to the united states. it did not come from mi five or mi six. a came directly from the cia that they were operating this as what we would call informants. it has been identified as an fbi informant which he may have become after july 31 but he was in the uk in the spring talking to carter page papadopoulos. it

would be highly unusual for the fbi to be operating or maintaining an informant in the kingdom. it is far more likely -- it is very unlikely that british intelligence would have been in touch with both of these people. they have been in the past because they were students of academic concern. it is also more likely and we know that in the past at least one of them had worked for the cia. the dangerous thing here and the origin of the case is it's bad enough that the information came from the british as flimsy as it was john brennan passed it to the fbi and then we go back to september 11. the fbi in the past would have never based on that open-ended investigation on an american entity they would not have opened it on your business traded with the russians on that information.

if i can digress a little bit here it may be of interest for this audience. when they freed the director and i was present for one or two of these conversations. when the bureau was about to start an investigation against a judge, a federal or local judge or against a member of congress. you got this come back in and let's talk about this one more time. at the director level with the member of congress the director again because you are trading on the constitution. you are investigating other branches of the government.

there was an extra poland and involved public officials. we still want to head a lot of those investigations but here they went ahead because there were some in the fbi after september 11 that thought the referral from the cia was enough predicate to start an investigation. when you look at the facts we do not think it is. >> it definitely seems president trump is of the same opinion as you. earlier in may he tweeted that brennan started this entire debacle. do you think that one of the reasons the fbi has dragged their feet in certain circumstances is because they are trained to avoid the embarrassment of showing that it was the cia that push this woman. >> at a minimum that is part of it. the bigger embarrassment was this many of you may know this

but there is a long-standing agreement between the united states and britain. that we will never spy on their territory. the other half of that agreement is that they are the hand on the arm of the cia. the cia tasks them to do things. the task the intelligence service to do things. they will never do anything in canada. the canadians will consider doing what they are asked to do they will usually do what we ask them to do and vice versa. so it is ironclad with the united kingdom and would be horribly embarrassing to the united states into the cia and

into the leaders of mi five and six and britain if it came out that the cia was directly operating these individuals at this institute. if that comes out it will be devastating. that is why they might be hiding the origin of the case. >> we only have a couple minutes here. i want to see if we can zero in on brennan. i was looking back at the news reporter that first broke the news that u.s. intelligence was probing the trump campaign. he wrote a book in which he said it was very clear that brennan had an ulterior motive. we saw that brennan not only did he refer this information but he also had the meeting with harry reid where he briefed him on somebody that had suspicions. do you see him not just as an intelligence actor but also a

political actor? >> that is a key question. after the case was open on july 31 2016 that is something that brennan then went to leaks and he told harry reid that he had turned this case over to the fbi and that is seen by any observer as an effort to get the fbi moving with this. because of that briefing it was the case. brennan has been very open about his motivation. he takes credit for having pushed this whole thing.

>> with the last few minutes we have here you brought up the pocket constitution and it is clear that it falls under the and executive branch. why doesn't he light a fire or would it be preferable for them to light a fire? >> that is the judgment call of the president. legally he has that authority. how politically that would go over his advisors that would make a judgment on that. >> thank you so much >> thank you.

[applause] >> thank you tom baker and phil wegman. that was a very enlightening discussion. we would like to move right on into the next panel so we can stay on time given the concerns with school safety keeping our kids safe we have put together a panel that can address these issues and provide some concrete ideas for improving school safety and keeping our kids safe. i will introduce the monitor of the panel and they will all come out here in just a moment but the moderator of the panel is erica anderson. she is the digital media director for the independent women's forum. we are also very proud that she

is the digital media consultant for the steamboat institute. erica is also a very talented writer because she would a book called resurrecting the life from the ashes of poverty. it is a fascinating true story. if you are looking for an inspiring read please find a copy of cloud nine. let's welcome to the state our panel on protecting school safety and keeping the kids safe. >> ♪ teach your children well, their fathers how is slowly going by and leave them on your dreams the when they pick the one you'll know by. ♪

>> hello everybody. i think we will be starting with a clip if that is queued up. >> they are expecting us to go rallying in margin for our lives and lay on the ground in the posters and that is not what we are doing. we do not want to look around and protest for change. we don't want outsiders coming in and imposing stuff on us. it was a boy who stole his dad's gun. and i know that there are advocates for people locking up guns but i feel like locking up guns would go against the second amendment even if it could help. i feel like it's an infringement. if you have a burglar coming what are you going to tell them. let me go get my gun out of the safe. >> everybody here has grown up

with guns or seen a gun or shot a gun. >> most everybody knows how to shoot a gun. the number one role do not point it at anyone. don't even pick it up up. act like it always has bullets in it. >> guns don't kill people. people kill people. >> if there are bonds that go off you blame the bomber. if there's a drunk driving accident you blame the drunk driver. when there's a shooter you blame the gun. you don't have to be okay with guns. i guess that you have to accept that. >> we know that you know how important the issue of school

safety is. some of you have kids or grandkids that are in the public school system. thank you so much for joining us for this conversation today. i will introduce the panelist now. they are not an order but i will start with laura who is right in the middle she is the founder a faster colorado it's an organization that trains school staff members to be armed on cancers -- campus. here we have a senior news producer at the daily signal and the cohost of the problematic women's facebook life show. she has interviewed everyone from teachers to administrators to students and covered the issue from media bias and information. the video was one that was produced by kelsey. we will see more of that in a moment. bob schaffer is the headmaster of liberty common skill and of

member of the leadership of the rockies as well as a former colorado member of congress and he has written about prevention and preparation tactics schools can take to be safe focusing on parental responsibility. we will focus on several topics today including the myths and realities of what it means to be unarmed teacher or an armed school. the media bias and what other schools can be doing to keep kids safe. i will kick it off with laura. we wanted to ask you as somebody who has benefited from this organization of training teachers and getting education at their own how to keep the schools safe what are some of the myths that are out there regarding arming schools and teachers. i feel like people don't know what that means and they get scared so let's clear up some of the things. >> some of the biggest myths out there are that teachers do

not want to be armed on campus and the second myth is that anybody would force a school staff member to be armed. you hear this in the words of you cannot make teachers carry guns. just like anywhere where concealed carry is legal it would be the same as saying everybody must carry a firearm. that is ridiculous. nowhere in the country is that happening. the other myth is that teachers do not want to be armed. we will take a step back and the difference between colorado and ohio and the program may have here with over 1600 school staff we have a pretty decent sample size about 60% of the folks are actually administrators and out teachers. when we think of the teachers think of the school staff that

does not include teachers for sure but also coaches and principals and so forth. this would be the big myths that are absolutely not true. >> a lot of people do not realize that there is actually already 14 states were teachers and administrators are already able to be armed him you just don't know about it. there are about 32 states where they are on the path to lawful arming. i guess that is just to say that this is happening and nothing bad is coming out of that. they are keeping students say for. in maryland recently a teacher or guard actually stopped a school shooting from happening and to touch on some of the other prevention minute -- measures in my home in indiana there was an attempted school shooting where the teacher who was a farmer -- former pro football player actually stopped the student through physical force. there's a lot of things would be

-- we should be thinking about. i want to ask you what are some of the most common fears you are hearing from people that are speaking out about it. >> the clip is really an interesting topic. some people think it is political and maybe on the to and there may be a political feel but i will tell you from speaking to dozens of parents for a couple of years but a lot of them since the parkland shooting, parents just want their child to return home to them alive every single day. to them it is not a political issue. it is a matter of safety so when it is their kid or can't ask a grandkid involve they are willing to say i'm i have felt

this other way about gun control before but now that it is my kid what is going to keep him or her alive and safe so i would say the fear is will my could be safer or less safe with armed staff. based on what we know somebody there on campus to stop the bad guys as soon as the incident starts as opposed to waiting for law enforcement that will keep kids safer. that will be the weakest fear. people just want to know will make could be safer or less safe. >> i found that 90% of mass shootings take place in a gun free zone. that is just such -- we are

keeping them is saved as possible using armed guards. we will show the second clip of the documentary. >> i think everybody knows the media portrays a searing -- certain political agenda that they agree with. it's not the political agenda that the majority of santa fe adheres to. i want all schools safe. we can agree to disagree on how to go about that. i am open to different solutions. our schools have to be safe. >> the door that he came in was on lots. >> i can tell you i have thought long and hard about arming the teachers. i do not think it is the end all by any stretch.

i do not think it is the magic answer but i will say this: i truly wanted that pistol in my hand. just speaking generally for me i would do whatever training is involved, i would do that. that would not be an issue. i think it could be done in a very safe manner. i think weapons could be stored in a safe. all that would have to be done but let's face it. it is another line of defense. >> kelsey, you went to santa fe and interviewed teachers and administrators. what is so interesting is that we were talking about -- we heard so much about the parkland shooting. you went to santa fe and he were talking to people

afterwards and you said he went to santa fe because nobody was talking about a. tell us what you learned by talking to them. >> i want to echo what laura said. the issue of school safety and school shootings is not a partisan issue. everybody wants to keep our students safe. i think many people in the media and on the left that are calling for gun control and gun reform are trying to put this wedge between the science -- sides when nobody is against keeping the student safe we just have different means of going about that. i have been reporting on this issue throughout the past year. one of my first trips was to colorado to learn about how the process of learning -- arming teachers and staff administrators actually worked. through that i was able to meet laura and learn about the amazing program she is spearheading in colorado.

sadly after that another school shooting happened and this time it was in santa fe texas. it was interesting because everybody knows about parkland and what happened there and everybody knows about the student activists there. when i told people that i was going to santa fe for my next documentary they asked why are you going there. nobody even realized there was a school shooting there. it hardly got any media attention. you didn't hear it from the students for the teachers. because i view my role as telling other people's story i wanted to let some of these students speak for themselves and read a text message that i got from one of the students in that video that described what happened there and how she wants to be an advocate for change but she is not able to have a voice because nobody in the media will listen to her.

this week i asked her permission to share this text with the audience. she said if i can do what kyle does, he is one of the loan second amendment supporters from parkland. if i can do what kyle does then santa fe won't be forgotten likely already have been. i tried working at a local level but it is not working because i am young the. nobody is speaking out for santa fe. we kicked the media out because they did not want to talk about politics or change. they only wanted videos of us crying. that broke my heart. when i was down there and you can watch the full 15 minute video that i put together usually they are for or five minutes long. i had to make us one 15 minutes on because i have a story to tell and nobody has told her. luckily i had a news organization behind me to

support that. it is a long video but it is worth watching because their story is not out there. what she told me was while she was in hiding she had cnn reaching out to her. they found a location on twitter reaching out or asking her to explain what happened. as soon as they were evacuated she woke pasts -- she walked past dead bodies and stepped on classmates blood. this is traumatic. as soon as she got out she was bombarded by media for the next week or two wanting sob stories and then they left because the media very quickly learned that santa fe supports the second amendment and they do not blame guns, blame the shooter. what is so wrong about that is that we can disagree on guns but the students and the teachers from santa fe are

calling for a lot of change. they have platforms and they started nonprofits. one of them is called hearts united for kindness. nobody knows about that simply because they support the second amendment. there is so much media bias out there and the students are being ignored and there's so much misinformation about how the process of actually arming teachers and administrators actually works. and the number of programs they have to go through to be able to conceal carry in the classroom. in one school district i interviewed in oklahoma they have higher standards than police officers because that school district decided if you are ever forced to pull out your gun you are not a normal police officer you have a backdrop of students who did nothing wrong so they actually want them to have higher

standards than even a police officer but nobody knows that because the media will not report it. >> for both laura and kelsey and if you have a comment please but -- jump in. we talked about how teachers are going to training three your program but nobody wants to talk about it. that could be very real consequences from the communities. you said it is hard to get the stories out there for that reason. can you talk a little bit about the personal side of the teachers and the staff that you have spoken with. maybe the ones that are doing this and why they are doing this. >> i drove up from denver this morning. we have a class going on right now. i will be driving back as soon as we're done to go back and enjoy the class. there is no shortage of these folks that want to be able to save kids. they are already willing to die for the children.

every single one of these people say i will take a bullet for these kids. what they are not willing to do is have their name out there. so some schools we would never know that they had armed staff to read the news. some of them have huge four by eight foot signs in the parking lot that say we have armed staff. so there is that gamut. for the most part even with a school that publicizes that they have an armed campus most of them did not reveal the names of the staff members. they do not want those individuals to be on a kill list. we have heard a lot about kill lists with these bad guys. with the exception a guy who came to the class in june had done some national media.

i asked him what was behind the decision to do this. he said if somebody's going to come in here to kill kids i want them coming to me first. >> i thought that is a different way to go but for the most part they do not want to be having their names out there. the other thing if you want to think about it is the fact that a person is armed at all and has a concealed carry permit at all is not really popular conversation in the teachers land -- teacher lounge. not everybody on the campus is behind the policy. some folks that already have the program to not want to talk to other people on the campus that are not part of that security team because they just don't want to get the fact from what these people might think about the fact that the school to that policy. >> we will transition a little bit to some of the things that

bob has been focusing on. arming teachers and staff is certainly one way to keep school safe but there are a lot of other things that you can do that people are not talking about because this is such a hot topic. i think the other precautions and prevention area measures that they can take is getting swept under the rug. kenny talk to us a little bit about some of the things you have written about and talked about regarding my parents can do and what schools can do outside of this? >> sure. first of all on the table is an article that i wrote about school safety for a publication. do not read it now. take it with the. there's good instruction in there about prevention and preparation and response and recovery. those are the main areas that we talked about when we talk about school safety as administrators. the bottom line messages this. it is a harrowing experience

for parents to drop their little children off at a school that somebody else owns and runs and manages to go to school and for the things that you expect to happen at school that can be terrifying when you drop that little child off at the curb and say go in there and we will see you later. it is another thing to be confronted with the emotion and stories and pictures that we hear from time to time when something goes wrong and there is a violent episode at school where you are not there and somebody else is in charge of that facility and you can't help. this is a terrible proposition for a great number of things. the message is there is no government worker school administrator and security officer that has a greater responsibility to protect your child than you do.

this is your child. it is not somebody else's responsibility to teach them. you may hire somebody to help you teach them. in the same context it is not somebody else's responsibility to keep your child safe. you might ask them to assist you but ultimately it is your responsibility. as a parent or grandparent you need to be a legitimate american him. you need to be unwilling to defer that authorities who are government worker. you must translate that authority for yourself and your family and for your child to be bold enough to ask tough questions and look at things that are common sense.

at that school was built in the 60s or 70s i guarantee that it has recessed doorways and you need to ask if anybody is going to do something about this. can you get this fixed and the mirrors up there so we can eliminate some of these kinds of things. has every phone in the school been tested to make sure that when someone dials 911 the address pops up on the screen because that does not always happen. you can find 100 different things he may want to ask the school about but the bottom line is -- for your own sense of school safety my gosh you are an american. send your child to a school that earned your trust. you do not have to accept the school that your school district designs based on your address.

[applause] >> some of the other things you have written about her having adult volunteers an anonymous tip line strategies. you mentioned architecture. are you seeing people actually doing these things. the school should be crawling with parents. schools that tell parents are not welcome or come up with reasons why they should not be volunteering are dangerous schools. they are created a vacuum that invites all kinds of negative things. we should be creating cultures. mega campuses are dangerous places. smallish schools where the teachers know the names of everyone of the children are imminently safer. administrators should be knowledgeable about the school that they recognize when a child's behavior is different

maybe in a way that would suggest some follow-up questioning may be needed to be sure that he is not a danger to himself or other people. when schools get too big and bureaucratic you miss that opportunity with children and families. the culture within the school is important as well. it starts with little things like dress codes and disciplines and policies and purchase that are not just celebrated on the wall but practiced and implemented. when those things occur children care about one another and you need that kind of culture within a school. they are only at school part of the time. they are communicating on social media and texting one another and you have to create a culture where they are inclined to realize an educated well enough to realize when there are dangerous conversations taking place and

when kids are expressing violent inclinations and they are willing to come and talk to the teacher or administrator and even parent. and nine times out of 10 when law enforcement or school administrators are able to intervene to prevent a dangerous episode it is usually that kind of environment that has allowed an openness of communication to say -- last year in the middle of the hallway it was final exam week. one of the students said he did not want to go to the next class. he said this was -- this was right after one of the school shootings. he said stupidly but jokingly this would be a great time for a school shooting. two kids raced down to the principal's office and named the kid. here is what he said. you are the adult can you take

it from there. is still take that seriously. he said the words. the policy is a nice thing. the police responded beautifully. the question is what was it that created the scenario where those two friends knew that it was important to tell us even though suspected it was a joke. the answer is it was a culture that was created in the campus. you must demand that that kind of culture exists where you send your kids to school. >> if you have questions you can put them on the notecards. just to add very briefly on that you mention culture and how important that is. i will ask the audience a

question that i do not have the answer to but i think it is one that is not being asked because it is uncomfortable and inconvenient but why are all of the strings of shootings happening in public schools and not private schools? >> do you actually want somebody to answer that >> >> i think everybody in this room might have some ideas when we talked about bureaucracy i think the important threat to the conversation about school safety is also school choice. empowering parents to be able to pull their children out of the school if they do not think the school is capable. i have done a lot of reporting on the issue of school bullying. basically that built in quotas and discourage administrators.

they did not want minority students to be suspended, expelled, or punished at a disproportionate rate compared to white students. we have seen through statistics that bullying has gotten worse and worse and parents are being forced to pull their children out of school. i interviewed a family in maryland that their third grade son and suicidal because of bullying. >> as a parent if you are uncomfortable with that idea you should have a right to choose a school that is not arming teachers. i should have a right to make that decision as well. >> that was exactly what i was

thinking and that is such an important aspect empowering parents to make the decisions and as we know it is their decision. >> can i add one thing to the discussion because i talked to an awful lot appearance. -- of parents. i spoke to parents after the sandy hook shooting. they like to show the look of english on the parents faces when they show up to the campus and they do not know if their child is alive or dead. they know that even if their child is life they will never be the same. they have lost their innocence forever. 's appearance here in my state when they called after parkland -- the safety and education of

your child. you tell them if they are open to having this conversation if they are not willing to answer all of these questions you take your child out and you bring them to a school that meets her safety standards. sometimes it is the first time a parent has heard what bob said. that this is your kid. you hire people to educate your kid but it is your job as a parent to do that. it's turning things a little bit for some parents that have

never really thought about it. it is pretty fascinating to see this issue getting people thinking about my kid my responsibility even though there has been decades and decades of government school telling us something different. >> the point i wanted to make was something that really stood out to me as we were discussing this beforehand which was that it can take up to 20 minutes for police to arrive on the scene at a rural school district. i think that is something that maybe people are not considering when they are thinking about the stuff. what do you hear from people that are opponents of the movement to the schools when they hear this kind of reality. i hearing any arguments against that. >> sometimes it's even up to 45 minutes and some school districts. much of these events are over in 3 to 5 minutes. you my not immune in the urban

district either. what is interesting is that i offer to debate anybody on this topic. that's one of the things they have difficulty with. would you rather somebody stop unmasking from happening right there on the scene when it starts or would you like to sit and wait for law enforcement to come whether it is three minutes or 30 minutes and it is one of those things that they do not have an answer for. usually the retort is we need to talk more about mental illness and more about not allowing people with mental illness to get firearms. we all agree on that. nobody here wants an underage person having a firearm that they are not equipped to handle. that's like going hunting with one family. everybody agrees that they do not want mentally ill people

getting firearms. please let's address this issue. there is a statistic out there that in most of these -- that one person can be shot not necessarily killed every 17 seconds. if it is your kid when this thing starts and the cop is in the parking lot how many intervals are you okay with i go with the zero. i want somebody right there right then. it is a tough thing that the other side doesn't have a good response to. >> we have talked a lot about the issue of fairness today. i would say one thing that i think is really unfair when it comes to the issue of arming teachers is the left complaining that people's passion and excitement for arming teachers.

you do this for a living and you wish you did not have to. i wish i did not have to report on this for a living. the fact of the matter is that school shootings are happening and we need to solve them. arming teachers is one piece of the very complicated problem. >> i want to move to questions. the first question is for anybody who wants to what about private schools as well? >> i will take it to the colorado standpoint. these are adults if you are over 21 in colorado you can

have a concealed carry permit. there are a lot of things that people said well what if this happens and what if that happens but none of that has happened. it is one of those things where you say do you trust law- abiding citizens to be in charge of their own self- defense and be the change when they welcome the college campus whether they are therefore some sort of an event and the customer should only be members of law enforcement and time and time again every situation where ordinary people can make that situation themselves we are not seeing the bad things happening on the contrary we see crime go down because of the bad guys. they do not want to die in the course of their bad guy life. when they know there is a place where folks can be armed they are much less likely to commit their crimes.

the weekend that the nra has the annual meeting across the country there is always a report one or two weeks later saying record low crime because the bad guys go somewhere else. they do not want to die in the course of being a bad guy. the next question may be one for you about the. >> how can students ensure their own protection and how do we make sure that we have a voice -- how do we make sure we have a voice even though we cannot vote. >> depending on the age college campus is one thing. you are responsible for your own safety and security. and the institution to a reasonable degree as well. when you are a child yes as you get older and mature you acquire more and more ability and wherewithal to think about protecting and defending yourself. children should not have to think about this every day.

this is -- children should know they are safe. schools have to take the effort to protect that. the question was asked how do you answer. there is great debate about this. when somebody asks either armed teachers and administrators in the school there is great debate on how to answer that question. i will tell you how we answer it which is we try to avoid answering a. we live in the west. the same answer for the school and the same answer for you. you should assume that everybody is armed in the room. we deserve respect. i am willing to protect what is mine and myself and my family. you assume what that means. don't mess with me. and then let's be friends. that is the way we conduct ourselves as individuals. we are prepared to defend

ourselves. we are prepared to fight back on behalf of our students. are we armed? not saying. you should assume every school is. the last time you were on an airplane did you have a federal air marshal on the plane? you do not know. you assume you may have. that would be a good thing for everybody to think about when i think of schools. unfortunately you know this about most schools already. 99% of schools in america are gun free zones. it would be better if all of us together was think that our teachers are prepared to defend us they under appreciate the value of human life if there is

no inability to even discuss among yourselves is private student citizens your spiritual life you are pushing out of the school a conversation that is very important of how kids relate to one another there should be values and virtues and open conversations on the school campuses. and you just need to look out for one another. that& -- that is the best way to look out for each other. it is about the value of human life. they don't know the sorts of

things they don't know how to respond to a violent situation in front of them. they know what to do which is the more smart kids there. >> [applause] >> to address that from a media perspective i say there's a dire need for more students to speak up. i think it is a challenging environment for them to do so. i think that you are against a wave of students. you are not in the culturally popular point of view. i get the girls that i interviewed here so much credit for their bravery and billy -- being willing to put themselves at the. i read the comments on these videos and we have people commenting about their weight. this is the type of thing they put up with.

it is not easy to do but for any students that are willing to get into this i will say that we need voices and some of the ways i would suggest going about doing that are getting involved with some of these organizations like turning point what you will hear from after us and also get involved with the nonprofit from hat -- that students are processing. also get a different perspective to the media because we need to hear it from you. >> i would suggest that you all start by grabbing kelsey's video on facebook. it is the most recent video up there and share. we need to get the story out there. the media is not covering this. it is up to us to get the story out there. it has 1 million views 40s and. thank you for listening everyone. >> thank you.

>> what a great panel. i would like to let you know that we posted kelsey's video about santa fe high school the steamboat institute website. you can find it on facebook and also if you go to steamboat institute. work/update you can see it there. when you are asking about it there is also the red donation button in the corner so if you are a guest of what -- of one of our sponsors anywhere inspired we would appreciate your support. it is a huge priority to inspire and empower the next

generation of leaders like all of these young people that are here scattered around the room they are doing an amazing job of inspiring our leaders you know two of them really well and you've got to know the others over the course of the year to steamboat institute events but we are pleased and excited to have with us charlie and candace of turning point usa . some of you have been coming to these conferences for a long time. it was back in about 2013 about one year after this guy had started disorganization out of his garage in illinois that a lot of people had not heard of the and we heard about him and brought him to our freedom conference and that's for many of you met charlie kirk. it's amazing what they have

accomplished in just six years. the millions of young people he is affected and learning about freedom and personal responsibility. his newest addition to turning point candace owens the director of urban engagement i know that many of you have seen her and are big admirers of herbert -- of her work. i will introduce branded who you have already met. let's give them a welcome. [applause] >> thank you

>> can you hear me. we want to talk about we have about 45 minutes and i thought we would begin by having charlie and candace talk to everybody about what it is and how the personal lives led into tp usa. i know that charlie's to care roughly half a decade ago.

>> i did not bring any protesters with me today. it has been a long month this week i just want to say thank you. i sat on the stage about four years ago and turning point was a lot smaller than it is today it was a couple hundred campuses it was an idea that is still in formation there are thousands of activists passing through the training program. jennifer, it has been amazing

the blessing in june 2012 it is the nation's largest and strongest and most innovative organization. we stand for free market and limited government we have accomplished a lot. we have a leadership senate -- summit and we brought our top leaders to the white house to meet with the president and had times to make fools of antifa.

we've had a very important summer. politics flow downstream from culture. back in november i hired candace five minutes after i met her. >> i started my journey on youtube. i was never really politically inclined. i was working in a private equity firm in manhattan named donald trump announced his bid for the presidency i remember thinking that i did not want him to be the president for a ton of reasons. i think he made a lot of people uncomfortable. he was not and still is not your typical politician but i was impressed by the rhetoric that was coming out of the media. they said he felt -- that they felt he was ill-prepared. they were saying he was a sexist they said he was incestuous and

had feelings for his daughter and i thought that was extreme rhetoric because i grew up in a household where i listen to hip- hop music and particularly in the black community trump was glorified. everybody was poolside at mar-a- lago and they wanted to be like trump. the second he decided to be president of the united states they did not like him. racism is being used as a theme to turn black people into single issue voters. the answer is yes. i had a brilliant idea that i could shake everything up and i was going to quit my job and i was going to have tremendous success. it really could have been of the delusion but i suppose i got lucky and i worked really hard and i saw a clear path in my head i thought i had to be a democrat up until that point.

i thought i understood what was going on. i had 29 million views worldwide. the video was dubbed in portuguese and spanish and french and that was really surprising to me. i thought i was hitting at an american sentiment. that particular video let me know that i was hitting the worldwide sentiment that something wasn't adding up. it really inspired me to keep going and it led me to charlie. everybody says why don't you have your own show and why don't you do this. if i was not serious that they were able to implement in the black community and there were three main verticals i understood we had to attack. the first one is it is family.

the breakdown of the black family that happened in the 1960s. that was the first thing they did. everybody is asking the question. the second vertical is culture and media most of the people that found me say they found me through kanye west despite the fact that i have been on fox news millions of times and for that. it was seriously important that we had attacked the education system which has been turned into liberal indoctrination camps and charlie was already fighting that so we linked up and he is not being funny when he said he hired me five minutes later. i spoke on a panel like this and he said what do you want to do. i said i want to leave the black revolution against the democrat party and he said you are hired. >> you can do your -- you should do your trump impression. i do a pretty good donald.

it was interesting to hear you say that your video went viral and other countries because one thing i have noticed in the last few weeks is the extent to which the ideology of social justice has an international reach. when i want brazilian news you hear people speaking in the same turns that a lot of humanities professors. it is how this particular way of thinking has led. there's an ideology everybody said have -- all bad ideas start in france.

it essentially comes from this idea that you are what you say you are and this idea of transgender is him and the absolute truth. it is suppressed i am the oppressor as a white anglo-saxon protestant i am the oppressor. candace is oppressed as a black female. the only thing i could possibly do is to apologize and to pay tribute so that i could possibly reconcile the sins.

cultural marxism postmodernism. this is where candace comes in so brilliantly. >> can i be a more oppressed than the person next to me are i am black but i'm black and a woman but i'm black and a woman and gay so i am superduper oppressed. it is crazy. there is a sign behind this that says we believe in free market capitalism. people are shouting and screaming and protesting.

they are angry and bitter you don't need government handouts for welfare. you can do it. that has become a point of contention because they have been left and the idea that is that there is value. >> here is a factoid. candace and i are the only conservative duo to speak at berkeley ucla and stanford in a span of six weeks and lived to tell about it. >> i am alive. >> you handled that very well. he went totally viral and that's what helped trigger kanye west to send a tweet out

that he loves the way you think. my favorite encounter is when a young black woman was trying to convince us that she was oppressed. she goes to ucla so give me a break. you can do whatever you want with your life. they have self empowerment. she said that's a horrible thing to say. >> they are really that vein. we go around you can get a crowd of people protesting you always. if you see somebody

with pink hair run the other way. i have people telling me that i am a white supremacist >> reporter: they are that delusional. they say over and over again how can you let down your sisters. >> then i realize she's talking about angela davis and black feminism and the idea that i cannot think differently than any other black person is a fundamentally racist concept. >> the notion of objectivity is white supremacist is something i have been told. >> they think that math and science are constructs created by white men to help women

continue their power. >> there were two directions i want to go when. first are there any elements of the personal story that you have not shared that might be of interest to the audience and kidded us to understand even better. what motivated you and i million other people -- and not 1 million other people said. >> my biggest motivation has always been my grandfather. he started out on a sharecropping farm. growing up in his household for my formative years and he put god first and his life second. truly although he probably would tell you he's a democrat he's a conservative.

he has conservative values. if you believe in god and belief in honoring your wife and you believe in structure those of the conservative principles. he entered his life when he had my grandmother retired he actually purposed -- purchased the sharecropping farm and owns it. that is the american green -- dream. as long as you are able to work hard and not play the victim. he is stubborn to a fault. despite the fact he's getting older. >> for those of you that have been following one of the most interesting developments this

has happened under the evolution of donald trump. it is quite remarkable. this is a good lesson for everybody in this room. they understand the value of the culture war and we have done our part to prove -- to defend one of the greatest parts of the presidency. what gets us so frustrated and this may come as a surprise to some of you the most hostile attacks come from fellow conservatives. some have passed through the ranks of this conference.

they it seems as if we are fighting too much conservative to conservative. the enemy is the left. we do not have time to get involved in crossfire or get involved in from the fire. we abide by reagan's 11 commandment thou shall not speak ill of a fellow republican. this is something i think we need to get better at >> we can talk of a -- all day about what is going on if we are not able to have open dialogue about the things

particularly resolve this a lot during what we call kanye week the notorious week that he tweeted out i love the way candace owens thinks this may be kanye's crowd. he is one of the most influential hip-hop artist and a designer and one of the most influential people in the entire world. he tweets one thing and within one week black support for donald trump doubled. he put on the hat and said i like donald trump he is my brother. what he did was he gave black people the permission to pursue different ideas. summer screaming boycott kanye but it did not work out.

he did something for the conservative movement that will be spoken about years now. he ripped open a hole in reality that allowed people that had been so caught in a bubble within this that they were willing to pursue different ideas and listen to different people. after that there was more significance in the donald trump tweet that came out a week later. people said ignore kanye. you just want to stay within the box of politics because i guess there is an idea that you should stick your nose up to culture. they have a stranglehold on culture and hollywood and hip- hop and music. it is why don lemon pretends to care about lebron james opening a school.

the left understands that that's how much it matters. when the kids are growing up in the projects and they do not have a project -- father at home they look up to these idols. they wonder if they can be like lebron james. culture is incredibly important. it is incredibly important that we embrace that. >> it is interesting to hear you talk about how the right is cannibalizing itself. that is something they said about themselves as well. they said that the right is so good at being cohesive. if the left is cannibalizing itself or there attacking segments of themselves it seems to me it could either be just for petty reasons or because they agree with your views but disagree with some of your

tactics without getting into names -- >> we will be going after liberals and leftists and so on and so forth. there is still a segment of the republican party and many in- house leadership in the senate leadership that hate this president. i said this yesterday on judge janine's show. everybody is complaining about paul mueller. it is house republicans that authorized the vote. it is the republicans are we supposed to do nothing if it

wasn't for them they define the leadership. i know this to be true because we spent time outside of america in dc every so often. there is a bipartisan cartel to destroy this president. the lines are very clear. either you are part of the establishment in both parties that would love to see this president fail. they want to get back to their swamp it's jacuzzi where they can just do whatever they want and nobody would call them out or you are going to support this president to actually recalibrate and realign to serving governments and first principles. i have never seen a group of people hate another group of people as much as they hate trump and allies.

will not back down just because they want us to stop talking. [applause] >> so we had a speaker here yesterday and i don't think he ever actually name donald trump but i do think that he implied a critique of trump is him because he thought -- i don't want to mischaracterize him that he is a libertarian and he really believes in the limited government and free market. he thinks that the republican party is losing sight of those principles. he may have been suggesting that trump in particular does not promote this to the degree that he would like. he cited things like economic protectionism.

>> candace, would you like to take this. >> this is the most conservative president of our lifetime. what is trump is him. putting power back into the individual as opposed to in the government where it has been controlling 90% of the country. they produced absolutely nothing. i don't understand the argument. it frustrates me that people come up with these terms like trump is him he is encouraging entrepreneurs to go out and believe in the american dream

and they are upset because he tweets. >> donald trump is off the charts more conservative and more successful than anyone who was in the republican field and he has done everything he said he's going to do. do you think they would've moved the embassy in jerusalem? do you think any of them would've actually put forth the greatest middle-class -- opening up something that ronald reagan failed to do and push failed to do so that they can open up the natural resources in alaska. every single category has been implemented and confirmed by trump. one out of eight in the country.

black unemployment is all-time low and women unemployment was all-time low. >> so here is the trade thing. president trump is more free- trade than george w. bush because he said okay europe let's do not tariffs. george w. bush never said that. he never went to europe and said we have subsidized your entire continent rebuilding sense world war ii when we do not tariffs. so trump goes okay and by the way you have a pipeline to russia and i love the way he called them out right in the face of those two-faced globalists. he said you are trying to critique me you have a multibillion-dollar pipeline going into your country by russian oligarchs and you're telling me that i am bought by

the russians. he says okay let's just a total free-trade and they say no we need protection for cars and automotive's. he's willing to go with free- trade but he understands that tariffs can be a mechanism. if we understand the consequence of how the trade deals were formed they were created out of balance to try to subsidize the advancement of europe after world war ii. number two china is still declared as a developing country. they are the second biggest economy of the world with the largest up population stealing the ip and hacking the cyber grid and building islands in the south china sea and they are still filed as a developing country. that is what he is fighting against. yet i find that people that are part of this media immediately

the gut reaction is guilty until proven innocent with this president. >> he is called the enemy of the people. that is the problem that on top of having to fight all of our enemies overseas he also has to fight the enemies here. he is the strongest leader that we have had in my lifetime. i cannot speak for everybody but i am very proud to have president trump as my president. we will continue to support him. [applause] >> he is the only president that gets attacked for doing what he said he was going to do. he is the keeper of promises. he said in the campaign trail i put forward a list of judges. i said i would remove the embassy the world doesn't want me to do it i'm still going to do it. okay will get out of the paris

climate accord deal. when keeping a promise after the other energy deregulation and what i find most flexing the left hates trump more than they love america but establishment americans would rather see donald trump fail then america succeed at the hail. they know that if it succeeds because it is antiestablishment tell it like it is we will do it the instincts tell us to do and they are always on the benefit of the pro-american worker and a citizen of the better >> we are both passionately standing up against the illegal alien thing. if anybody is paying attention they have been a threat to the black community the most. the people that hurt the most over the illegal immigration is the black people. when i ask people do you think black people should have to work for less than minimum wage. what do you think happens when the people come over the border and they are competing for the

jobs because he talk about low- wage workers and the people that are impacted the most is young black men. they are competing with illegal aliens when they come to this country. that are committing crimes and they are bringing harrell whenever the corner -- over the border which has become an epidemic which the administration is also working to fight. and then they said the kids are in cages and being separated from their families. when you commit crimes you are separated from a family. that is not near. are we crying for all of the kids whose fathers are locked up in a prison. i we crying for those kids because that's what happens when their fathers commit crimes they are separated from their parents. if i was to put my kids in the back of the car and said let go rob a bank and the cops came and arrested me there's a chance that my kids would be held for a little bit until they can figure out where to go. i do not understand all the emotion that is coming out. >> you are exactly right.

>> okay so i have a lot of questions and we probably just have time for a few of them. >> i will just with the front right now. if conservatism it is about principles should be be wary about hitching a movement to a celebrities wagon. >> let me address this please. we just address this when we talked about the cultural award. yes if there are celebrities that are willing to open the conversation to get people to think differently and critically that is not hitching to a wagon. connie did not say everybody has to vote for trump. he said i like trump. he gave them permission to like

trump that they like him. he did not say i hate hillary. he just said who he liked. we are embracing the fact that there are people that have hitched their way into the celebrity culture and we are trying to let them know that it's okay to be an individual and yes i embrace that completely. [applause] because. -- >> candace or charlie do you think people are gaining or losing momentum when they use groups like antifa and black slaves -- black lives matter. >> let me describe what happened in one sense. white liberals screamed at a black conservative for defending a black police force against

white liberals that were trashing the city that was 44% black. all of the antifa were all white calling her a white supremacist and calling her a [ null ] >> among calling her the police force because they just started screaming race traders at the police force. i asked them whose race are they betraying. if you are looking at the side and we have 10 black police officers and a black female and all of these people that do it in the name of defending racism. is their excuse to be violent to do whatever they want to acquire political power. that's what the left theme is. they do not care about what is happening to black america. nobody is talking about the people that were shot in chicago over the weekend. the did not want to discuss chicago but they wanted to talk about laura ingram and boycotting her.

they do not care about black lives. black lives matter do not care about black lives. where were they in chicago last week. they boycotted all throughout the presidential election of 2016 because 16 unarmed black men were shot and killed by police officers. as a black man in this country have a higher chance of being stuck lightning then shot and killed by a police officer. they were boycotting violently. has anybody hear from them since the presidential election or about last week and. 70 when black people were shot and they are silent because there is no way they can pin it on donald trump. >> the last time there was a republican mayor of chicago all democrat aldermen and congressman and monopolization of political control.

rahm emanuel went away and implemented his policies and murders have gone up under barack obama over 2000 >> 4000. the same amount from the iraq war. >> the same amount of black men died in south -- ins the south side of chicago as they did when obama was in office. >> and silence. >> the priorities were about political power. they will use black people's to gain political power. they want to make sure that black people continue to be dependent on the government so they are forced to defend the same government. it is about keeping them on welfare. the black caucus suited up and clapped when he announced more food stamps. and president trump announced that black unemployment was at an all-time low.

the clapped for government dependency and basically sat there and soaked when we announce that more black people were becoming independent. >> democrats need people do need them. >> that is correct. >> i don't even know if we answer the question. i was just ranting. >> these are some fascinating questions. this one is about wikipedia. one thing that is really interesting that is happening right now that all of us had to think about is the fact that there are these private-sector platforms that monopolize our information. if they are politically biased that can have a really significant effect on political opinion in the country. it is tough for libertarians because when libertarian principle is that private sector organizations as long as they are not monopolistic can do whatever they want and have whatever biases they want. the

question was about wikipedia but i would say to what degree do you think that wikipedia and facebook and any biases they have have made it hard for you to succeed and also what is your position on the proper response to the private sector effective monopolies. >> wikipedia is impossible. every day we fight against wikipedia. first of all they took down my page. i read the turning point instead of the wikipedia page. it is so fallacious. they pick articles that they quote unquote source from far left wing rags with total lies about the organization. we try to the people that work there to edit it to no success. when we try to get new chapters and the administrator say you guys embrace white supremacist. >> i laughed.

i looked at my page for the first time about three weeks ago. i was laughing out loud. they say she is anti-black anti- lgbt and anti-somatic. after i finish reading it i said that woman sounds terrible. this is how bad they are. one of my favorite stories is that on wikipedia my age never changes. so i finally went to the journalist that was in charge of it and said i'm not 22 and he sent you're not 22 anymore. that is like the one thing you can logically know is going to change. i am going to get older. it still says i am 22. >> the tech company is a more

serious issue. i think you guys know that yesterday on twitter gavin mcginnis and his organization got banned from the apple store , facebook, and spot a sidecar and youtube at the same time so that shows a coordinated effort. it doesn't really mean -- matter what you think about them to look at the situation objectively. do we believe in free speech is what it comes down to. is it scary to think that the biggest tech companies in the world are coordinated to shut down entire conservative companies yes. if we don't talk about it it

can be in for wars yesterday and me and charlie one month from now. it is scary and it something we are not doing enough to talk about. we do not want more government regulations so it is tricky. >> so we have some good questions here. with people prefer a question about #metoo or lack identity. so maybe really quick answers to both. kansas -- candace has said that #metoo is about victim hood and political power. how is it about power if both parties have backed

politicians. >> i am a person that has spoken out and said that i do not support the #metoo movement. everybody has a box that i am supposed to stand and. the #metoo movement has become a witchhunt against men. any movement that is rooted in victimhood will be successfully hacked and used by the left. >> i think i was the most ideological person when i said i did not support the movement for the same reason i don't support black lives matter. a conclusion would be to say that you like it when black men get shot. i'm telling you that it is no longer about having productive conversations. it's about a war on police. the #metoo movement saying that means i don't support women

that are raped and sexually assaulted on a merit-based situation is absurd but i do not support what i have seen become a witchhunt against med. people have been successfully able to end careers and take down men. other spoke down about as well. he takes away due process and even if somebody has been able to prove that it was an allegation his life is already ruined because he has been smeared through the press and he has already had to step down or away. i believe in due process and i also believe that you don't need a hashtag to talk about issues that matter. i think when anything begins to trend and it gives the power to women to take down men without due process

>> please join me in giving them a round of applause. >> thank you. [applause] >> the c-span washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact your. coming up wednesday morning on day two of cavanaugh's confirmation hearing the alliance for justices and policy centers will join us to talk about the judicial philosophy. be sure to watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern wednesday morning. joined the discussion. >> in 1979 c-span was created

by a public service a cable company. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of progress. the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. they are brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. at resurgent gathering a conference for conservatives a facebook executive talked about perceived political bias in social media. this part of the conference begins with a discussion about ballot initiatives. it is 1 1/2 hours. we will get started. my name is drew ryan. i am part of the resurgent team but my everyday looks different than that. i'm the ceo and founder of an organization. we are one of the preferred vendors for the rnc.