of you don't watch that show. i was on with chris matthews and governor here in pennsylvania, ed rendell. i made the easy case against the obamacare and i said to chris matthews, the reason that people are turning out to these town halls -- how many have been? the reason people are attending, you don't understand, this is something that has been been pent up since the first days of the obama administration since the stimulus plan, bailouts, health care and cap and trade. that's what's going on. i said ordinary americans are fed up to here with what is going on in washington. and chris matthews turned to me and said to me on air, he said the reason these people are going to these town hall

meetings is because they don't want a black president to succeed. this was the most offensive things i ever heard. they think we are racist and i think it's important for americans to really see the face of the opposition movement. .

[applause] >> there was a great political cartoon. i do not know if it was in your local newspaper. it had a picture of barack obama carrying around joe biden and walks up to this government window and says cash"for clunkers." i think we need to turn in the whole ball my head -- still barack obama administration -- the whole barack obama administration in. i want to talk about the three pillars of evil. that is to say the legislative agenda that we have to defeat. first, i want to talk about the greatest hoax.

that is global warming. this climate change agenda is so evil and so much contrary. many americans think a global warming is happening. many people think this is a problem. i want to assure you of this. no matter how big a problem you think that climate change is,, the capt. trade bill will have zero impact on global climate. it will have a big impact on our economy and our jobs. i call this the full employment act for india and china. what we are going to do if we

pass this bill, and by the way, we talk about what the greatest threat to freedom is this is that the health care bill or the capt. trade bill? they are both huge threat, but i think the capt. trade is even more -- i think the cap and the trade is even more dangerous. you'll know that it will haven't -- not have an impact on global climate change because factories and plants and facilities in so many of the things of our manufactured in our industrial sector will move from the united states and will move to china and will move to india and indonesia and it is interesting because i follow these global climate packs and when you go to these things, there is only one thing the rest of the world can agree on.

they want the united states to go first. they want us to drop off the close first. that is why the day that the u.s. house of representatives passed that capt. trade bill -- that cap and trade bill, they had parades' in the streets in india. i hope that nobody in this room believes that the world is running out of polar bears. i have done an editorial on this were i talked to the people that say that it is the poster child of the climate change movement. in 1950, there were 20,000 polar bears. now there are 55,000. does that sound like we're losing the polar bears? no. 2, on what to talk about what is going on with our fiscal policy. the amount of debt that has been taken on by this administration is a fiscal obscenity.

i call it financial child abuse. i would make the case that that is the reason so many of you are here today. you care about our children. we have taken on more debt in the last six months than the u.s. government did in the last 20 years. it just to give you a sense of how bad this is greeted this started under george w. bush. if you add it all up, it comes to about three trillion dollars to try to rescue the economy. here is the amazing thing. with three trillion dollars, we could have eliminated the corporate income tax for an entire year. if we had eliminated the income tax and told every business and every worker in america that you do not have to pay income tax

anymore, it could you imagine what kind of rocket fuel that would be for our economy? instead, we're putting solar panels on libraries and things like that that are not want to work. it is amazing because i always say that this is a sad thing to say. one trillion is the new billion. when i first came to washington in the 1980's, we talked about a budget in the millions of dollars. the we have moved from the millions of dollars to the billions of dollars. i think that one of the problems we face is that the numbers are so big that people cannot relate to that. here is something you can do to relate this to your friends and kids. the other day, my friend was asking me how much one trillion dollars was. can anybody tell me about how many zeros there are in a

trillion? 12. here's what i told my son. i asked who the best basketball player in the world was and he said bryan james -- hughes said lebron james. i told him that james made $40 million a year. here is a question for you. how many seasons the thank you would have to play basketball at $40 million a year to make one trillion dollars. you know what the answer risk? 25,000 seasons at $40 million. that is the count of money we're spending in washington. it is about the budget. it is about the capt. trade and in the last minute that i have on health care, this is a huge threat.

you have heard of all the problems. i want to mention something that does not get attention. i do not know how many have you paid attention to what is going on, but it is an amazing document. there is a bill that passed the committee and it pays for it in two ways. it applies a 10% payroll tax to every worker. a 10% payroll tax. this is insanity. we have 15 million americans who are unemployed in this country. what are we doing raising taxes on small businesses? how many of you in this room can afford to pay a 10% payroll tax on your workers? if you have to pay that tax, your want to have to lay off workers.

this is the kind of economic common sense that does not penetrate the those people in washington who do not have their true tables and the upright and locked positions. one of the biggest problems in washington is the vast majority of them have never run a business. the vast majority of them have never met a payroll. they have no idea what it means to impose these taxes. it sports a new 5% income-tax on the rich. people like a brawn james -- lebron james. here is the amazing thing. of those people in the top income category that will pay this higher tax, two-thirds of those people are small business owners and operators. how in the world are you going to get more jobs when you tax the employers that create the jobs?

>> one last thing. i feel that this is important. this idea that the rich are evil has become a cancer cell. here is the amazing thing. if we do the 5% income-tax and then president of bob dole wants to move back to the old tax rates which means the highest tax rate will go from 35 to 40%. and then if you live and a state like new york or california or new jersey or almost half of the state, you're talking about an eight the 10%. you are talking about a tax system were over half of americans haven't and come that will be taxed by the government. we are right back in the battle

that is. -- in the bad old days. how many remembered 20% mortgage rates? i am going to end with this. in the next eight weeks, they may be the most critical time. we have to say no to bailouts and note to obamacare in node to capt. trade. -- and no to tap and trade. [applause] >> please direct your attention to the television screens for special message from georgia congressman dr. tom price, the chairman of the republican study

committee. >> i am congressman tom price and i represent georgia and i have the privilege of chairing the committee. thanks to all of you for traveling to pittsburg this weekend. it is conventions' just like these were ideas and discussions will come together to create an atmosphere where 21st century conservative movement can take hold and thrive. now, more than ever, this is the time to come together and lay the foundation for a new tomorrow. as you know, our freedoms are under attack in washington. president barack obama, nancy pelosi and the democrats in charge card taking part in an experiment. there is a two trillion dollar increase in our deficit. their tax plan will place a job

bird and plant during a time of economic -- economic distress. it will destroy that quality care that all of us rely on. you and i both know that these policies are destined for failure. they fly in the face of positive, free-market principles that have given us our great prosperity. after six months of obama nation, this is not the change they want to keep. every week, i get hundreds of phone calls expressing concern about the direction we're headed. there are not just upset. they are angry. most important, they are asking what they can do. that is why what you're doing s so important. no matter what corner of this nation you call home, you're proving that all americans can have an impact on our public debate.

personally, we have found green success in making you to videos that shine the light on what this irresponsible majority is up to with your tax dollars. every great revival begins at the grassroots level and the leaders at this convention can provide that spark. i promise you that you're having an effect. i promise you that these battles can be won and i promise you that we will fight on your behalf in washington and we look forward to fighting these battles lie alongside you. remember that wonderful quote from one of our founders, samuel adams. it does not take a majority to prevail, but an irate and tireless minority teen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. keep up the good fight. we will find our way back as a nation when we restore the principles that made us great. god bless and thank you so much.

[applause] >> our next speaker was last year's blottegger of the year. please welcome maggie thurber. >> good morning. i can tell you that it is so fantastic to be in a room of like-minded individuals. joe the plumber and i are from toledo. there are not many conservatives there. i am grateful for americans for prosperity to bring us together so we can see that we are not alone. it is my honor today to make this introduction. there are an awful lot of things that have been said about our next speaker. in 2007, she was called racist, crude and a hate monger.

they said her blog was a hate site. they said she had too much time on her hands. she was the flavor of the month among conservatives. the even said she would probably not be where she was today if she were a blonde haired, blue- eyed standard issue conservative. being a brunette, i took exception to that. that is what the experts said. just as we're seeing with health care, the american people, everyday americans, have a much different perspective. jon said that she is wonderful. i do not know how or where she finds the time to pull together all this information and she backs every posting up with integrity. art bell wrote that she will shockey and through you and educate you with new she will not get anywhere else.

christine described her as it really smart and a great thinker and vincent said that i am glad that there are people like heard out there telling it like it is. her latest book, which was released in july, hit the best- seller list in nine days. the american public is not wrong. today, she is here to tell us like it is, so please join me in welcoming commentator and best- selling author, michelle malkin. >> thank you. thank you. hello my fellow evil maunders.

for the second time in my adult life i am so proud to join all of you brooks brothers mobsters at this event. i want to thank all the bloggers that i will not take calls on iphone during our conversation. in defiance of the etiquette as oczars you are welcome to shout blue clapboard cheer at any level you choose without fear of being labeled a political terrorist or klansman. when we met last year, we were fending off attacks from general wesley clark. remember this?

he was deriding conservative blotters as a right wing of freedom machine. or recall that? because we were exposing the myths of hope and change. we have come a long way, baby. it is true that these mere machine is now in full over drive from the white house to the dnc, to the knott routes gathering a stone's throw away from here in pittsburgh. it is true that they are waging war on all of the watchdogs, bloggers talk radio, block -- a box news, all this. it is true that they are attempting to redefine vigorous civic participation as disruption.

it is true that there were attempting to redefine our mere existence as an incitement to violence. it is true that they are attempting to redefine dissent as hatred when in fact our descent is rooted in love of liberty and prosperity for all. [applause] and they are doing all of these things. they have unlimited resources to do it, including our own tax dollars. but all of that mudslinging cannot mask and inconvenient truth. the era of hope and change is dead and it only took six months in office for them to kill it. [applause] but don't just take my word for it.

listen to some of these assessments. ", barack obama is a master politician who focuses on his own political victory. i think we all want to believe and what he is talking about but his disappointing in every direction. yes. i do not see or feel any change and there is absolutely no transparency in government. this is not what i voted for. i have been duped! i expect there were -- what i am wondering is what they could not figure this out before they cast their vote. the signs were numerous and abundant. here is the great part. this did not come from conservative blogs and did not come from my blog. this is not right wing

extremists, this comment came from a 700 + comment thread on the new york times web site posted in response to a liberal columnist frank rich's column title is folbaum -- is barack obama punking us? >> welcome to right wing freak club. as many of you know, when my book launched, one of the appearances i did was on the view. that's right. i braved the lion's den and i came prepared and it was quite fascinating. you can see the clip on hot air or on youtube. i was stunned by how ill armed

and ill-prepared willhoopeei and the rest were. barack obama was day of side by repeating over and over again that washington is broken. yet, under president barack obama, business as usual is booming. the collapse of the era of hope and change demonstrates the first and last lot of political physics. as government grows, corruption and flows. this is true whether a democrat is an office or a republican is. massive new federal spending +

tens of thousands of pages of new regulations that no one has ever read, plus unprecedented new powers over taxpayers on the economy due course limitless new opportunities for sleaze, favored trading, deal cutting and influence-peddling. they may still cling to the belief that he can work miracles, but no one, not even the miraculous barack obama can drain a swamp by flooding it. [applause] just weeks ago, the prognosticators pronounced the tea party movement the taxpayer counter insurgency movement dead. never mind that hundreds of thousands if not millions of newcomers to politics have taken to the streets since february

and their numbers continue to grow. the wanted you gone. they wanted you silence and out of sight. they wanted to marginalized, demonized and demoralize, but you prevailed. you have shown the spine and resilience that have been so lacking among too many of our own republican leaders in washington. now, you, the teeny tiny minority of extreme right wing extremists have seized control of the domestic policy debate in this country. that is an amazing development.

don't worry about tallying up how many people are attending the conference verses' this conference. that is not the metric. the metric is, what does the white house worry about right now? are they worried about you? who were they trying to silence? them or you? you have seized control. you have gained the upper hand. you are holding democrats and republicans alike for the skies and a massive and anti-tax as climate change legislation. and on the white house health- care takeover plan, you have the majority running scared. think about this. contemplate this. democrat lawmakers are hiding

from their constituents in sci your offices -- in seiu offices. they're taking sanctuary in children's hospitals. they are phoning it in in teleconference calls instead of face-to-face meetings. they are charging an voters $25 to attend town hall events. they're stacking their audiences with a doctor's -- with fake doctors. as well as a hall chanting yes

weekend. but your astroturf. the role of true bloggers in this tectonics' political shift is in voluble and inestimable. the idea that all of this was directed from the top down is absolutely laughable. the beltway gop only wishes that it could have been as competent and insightful and for cycle to see this. [applause]

accusing grass roots conservatives -- those who have never grasped the concept of the invisible hand in the marketplace. that is why i appreciate what you do so much. i come here and i hear from many of you and many of you who i have never met in person and it is purse -- is a miracle that all of us have this shared experience and shared passion to exercise our first amendment rights, most of all when they're so under threat by this white house. we have so much in common in our principles. we live our lives and we're raising our kids only want to insure prosperity for them and

future generations. we're threatened and we get up again and again and again. in the event, we are happy warriors. there was a lot of depression and teeth gnashing in the beltway after this last election. we were told by our leaders to rid brand ourselves. did away from what defined the republican party for so long and adopt barack obama principles. we have also been told over and over again that we do not understand the internet and we are not using it enough and yet, your videos on youtube are playing all over cable tv every day. [applause] i think that there is an

inextricable link between the grassroots insurgency and the fact that you have so many conservative books on the best- seller list of newspapers the refused to review them and that continued to believe the conservatives do not read. [laughter] it has been an amazing experience all the book tour, watching the success of the book and seeing so many people understand and practice what i believe my entire life as a journalist. the sunlight is the best disinfectant and that knowledge is power. [applause]

i have spent an entire career in print and online journalism and i have been his business a long time, even dull lot of c-span callers call me a young lady. i have been in this business for 17 years and i have watched this ability police in the news rooms that i have worked for and strategist in washington on both sides of the aisle council me and folks like you to turn it down. to conduct ourselves in low tones. we cannot afford moderation in times like this. the business of protecting our home life from intrusion, and protecting our commerce and

livelihoods' from reckless government restriction. this is not the time to bend our spines or about our heads. -- or bal our heads. please, sir, i want some more. only extreme vigilance, forceful, rubberizing, aggressive speech can -- we have nothing to apologize for ever. thank you.

[applause] >> and now, please welcome the executive director, eric alford. >> hello and thank you for joining us today. i want to ensure that you achieve. the real work begins when the fire of your computer's.

we look forward to the great difference we can make going forward. right now, i would like to people but certainly deserve recognition for their efforts. last year, and our first conference in austin texas, she first learned how to twitter but since that time she has become a prominent person using this tool to organize and mobilize and get our message out there. we want to recognize her for the great work she has done. i would like her to come appear on stage. we also need to give credit where credit is due to our opponents on the left for recognizing the advantages they

have online. after all, al gore did in the internet. we are of presenting her with our al gore award for excellence. we hope that those of you who have attended seminars and started learning how to blog and torture -- twitter, it is important and will need to find ways to get more involved with it. i would also like to recognize rachel alexander. the enthusiasm that we have seen is sweeping the nation. people want to know how they can get engaged in how they can use these tools. that is the driving mission of our efforts. we cannot be everywhere all the time we have been fortunate

enough to have racial as an ally who has conducted training is on our behalf in several states to teach citizens how they can get engaged on line and be more effective. that is something that we hope to advance going forward. tell your friends and family would you have learned here. we want to present her with our activist of the year award. >[applause] just a few quick announcements. they do have to reset the room for our panelists, so we have to get to it and get out of here as soon as possible. we would like to exit out the doors to the left. please stop by their booths. lunch will be served in the admiral room. michelle malkin, jo the plumber and ronald kessler will be doing

book signings. the bus will be outside in the parking lot. panels reconvene at 130 in this room and dust this room will be broken up into sections. thank you all for being here. we look forward to the work you will do going home. >> [applause] tomorrow, on news makers, karen ignagni talks about health care. it newsmakers at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> british voters are expected to go to the polls and national

elections next spring. this weekend, how government to change policies. >> this fall, into the home to america's highest court from the grand public places to those only accessible by the nine justices. the supreme court, becoming the first sunday in october on c- span. >> this is c-span's "america and the courts."

wednesday, president obama held a reception at the white house to honor justice sotomayor, sworn in last saturday, becoming the first hispanic justice and third woman to serve on the supreme court. >> i am glad all of you could be with us today as we honor the newest member of our highest court, who i am proud to address for the first time as the justice sotomayor. [applause] we are also honored to be joined by justice sotomayor's new colleagues. we have justice ginsberg here, as well as justice stevens. [applause] so i just want to thank both the

justice stevens and justice ginsberg, not only for being here today, but for your experience on the court. i know you will give her some good tips. i also want to thank everyone who has worked so hard to bring us to this day. i'll especially want to thank our judiciary committee chairman, senator patrick leahy. [applause] as well as our senate majority leader harry reid, for their outstanding work to -- [applause] for their outstanding work to complete this process before the august recess. i want to thank senator schumer, senator dole brand, both of them home state senators for

sotomayor on behalf of their extraordinary work. i want to thank all the members of congress who have taken the time to join us here at the event and want to acknowledge all of thedvocates and groups who organized to mobilize in support of these efforts from the very beginning. your worked maybe absolutely -- your work was critical to our success, so pat ourselves on the back. congratulations. [applause] to members of congress want to acknowledge, senator bob menendez, who worked so hard on the senate side -- and commerce woman vasquez -- congresswoman vasquez, from our hispanic caucus. i think we all wanted take a

moment to recognize the woman who in so many ways made this day possible, justice sotomayor. [applause] she is here with her husband, omar, her brother, one, and other members of her family who are thrilled they could join us here today. and let me also just thank my extraordinary white house staff, who were able to usher this forward. we are very proud of them. thank you very much. [applause]

of course, we are here not just to celebrate, we are here to celebrate an extraordinary moment for our nation. we celebrate the impact she has already had on people across america. we celebrate the greatness of the country in which such a story as possible and we celebrate,, with the overwhelming vote to confirm her, they tore down yet one more barrier and affirm our belief that in america, the doors of opportunity must be open to all. with that vote, the senate looked beyond the old divisions and they embraced excellence. they recognized her intellect,

her integrity and her independence of mind. respect for the proper role of each branch of government, the fidelity in each case. justice william brennan said that in order to ensure rights for all citizens, they must be attentive to all concrete realities at stake. they must understand the pulse of life that meets the official version of events. the justice understands those realities, because she has witnessed them firsthand. as a prosecutor, a litigator, and a judge, working to uphold our laws, keep our communities safe, and give people a chance

to live out their dreams, work she has done with devotion, a distinction, and an unyielding commitment to give back to this country that has given her so much. she understands these things because she has lived these things, because her life is an only-in-america story. raised in the south bronx by a woman determined to give her every opportunity to succeed, putting in the hard work that would give her scholarships to the best schools in the country, driven always by the belief that it does not matter where you come from, no dream is beyond reach. with her extraordinary breadth and depth of experience, just as sotomayor brings both a mastery of the letter of the law and an understanding of how it unfolds in our daily life. its impact on how we work,

worship, and raise our families, and having the opportunity is to raise the families we imagined. that is vital, as justice stevens and ginsburg will testify. as visionary as our families -- founders were, they did not presume to know what new questions fate and history was set before us. instead, they thought to articulate details that would be accommodating of the ever- changing circumstances of our lives, preserved for each new generalization -- generation are morse sacred rights and freedoms. when justice sotomayor took the oath, she took yet another test -- another step towards realizing the ideals. we came another step closer to the perfect union we all seek.

because of her achievements, the result of her ability and determination, this moment is not just about her. it is about every child will grow up thinking that him and herself, if she can make it, maybe i can, too. [applause] >> ever brother or father that lives of the sacrifices that they made and the successes they add.

it is about everyone in this nation faces troubles in their lives to here's her story and things to themselves that if she can overcome so much, then why can't i. nearly 80 years ago, as the cornerstone was laid for the building became a supreme court, chief justice. this is yet another symbol from that fate. faith that equal justice under the law is not just an inscription and marble, but and and an animated ideal of our democracy. nation, all things are still possible for all people. this is a great day for america, and i know that all of us here are proud and honored to have

been a part of it. with that, i would like to introduce justice sotomayor. [applause] >> no words can adequately express my feelings.

no speech can fully capture my joy in this moment. nothing can convey the depth of gratitude i feel for the council family members, starting with mom and my brothers, and the many friends and colleagues who are here with me, and others were not, who have helped me reach this moment. none of this would have happened without old you -- all of you. i have the most heartfelt appreciation for the trust you placed in me, and i wanted convey my thanks to the judiciary committee for conducting a respectful and timely hearing, and to all members of the senate for

approving the president's selection. i'm so grateful to all of you for this extraordinary opportunity. i am most grateful to this country. i stand here today knowing that my confirmation as justice would never have been possible without the opportunity presented to me by this nation. more than two to two centuries ago, in a constitution containing fewer than 5000 words, our founders set forth to their vision to our new land. there self-proclaimed task was to form a more perfect union, to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty. over the years, the ideals of the heart of that document and the word -- they have endured a

subsequent generations have expanded blessings. these rights and freedoms go to more and more americans. our constitution has survived domestic and international tunnels, including the civil war, two world wars, and the catastrophe of september 11. people of all races, fates and backgrounds are drawn together from all across this country who carry its words and values in our hearts. it is this nation's faith in a more perfect union that allows a court to reconsider all from the bronx to stand here now. -- a puerto rican girl from the bronx to stand here now. [applause]

i am struck again today by the wonder of my own life and the life we in america are so privileged to lead. in reflecting on my life experiences, i am thinking also today of this judicial oath of office i first took almost two decades ago, and that i reiterated this past weekend. to judge, without respect to what a person looks like, where

they come from, or whether they are rich or poor, and to treat them as equals under the law. that is what our system requires, and it is the foundation of the american people's fate mineral wall, and why i am so passionate about wall -- along -- the law. i asked not just my family and friends, but i ask all americans to wish me to find guidance and wisdom in administering my new office. i thank you all again for the love and support, and i think president obama and the senate for the tremendous honor and privilege they have given me.

thank you. [applause] >> her new term begins in october officially. justice thomas gave the keynote address for the american s.a. award last march in washington. he talked about what it means to be an american today's society. >> thank you, dr. templeton, for reading all my words. that gives me a pass. and thank you for your kind introduction. i would like to thank each of you for coming out in the middle of the week. this is a rare sighting, for me to be out at this point in the

week, certainly during a sit-in week, but this is an important evening. i would like to thank my bride for being here. one great thing about -- [applause] we have been a team for a while, we enjoy each other a lot, and i must admit, i admire my wife, because she has never lost sight of the principles she came to the city to defend.

i would like to take my hat off to my friend, juan williams. i have known him a long time. and the one thing, with all the disagreements, growth, and issues, he has always been honest. in this town, that counts for a lot. [applause] during difficult times, he was courageous and i admire honesty and courage, especially in this city. we should probably preserve and protect that rare commodity.

what i would like to do this evening is to not go on too long, to not lecture you. i told my%@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ r . . a sense, at least i do, that at some time, people should be tired of hearing from you.

i have been fortunate to have been in this town for some time, almost 30 years. i am rounding the last term for my 18th term in the court, and as i was thinking about these young people, i realized that many of them had not been going when i started there. that is a sobering recognition. i would like to make a couple of points, and then a final point, and make a considerable about of time available for these young people's questions, which are far more important than any of my musings. i think that the framers, especially madison, who give us our bill of rights, and

jefferson, who gave us our declaration of independence, understood that for liberty to exist, the populace needs to be educated enough to understand liberty and be able to defend liberty. they also understood that liberty was not on automatic pilot. it would not exist simply because it was once started. it was delicate, and it had to be protected. the one thing that stood out for me about the bill of rights institute was that it understands that to protect this precious but essential commodity, young people, the

next generation, and the generation after that has to understand what they are protecting and why it has to be protected. i have been on the court for quite some time, and i have to admit that when i started this endeavor, or for some, an ordeal, that you have level understanding of our great document, our founding documents. it is workable, functional, but after you work with that document for so many years, your level of understanding and appreciation gross. it becomes, as i say to my law

clerks -- through all the opinions and the briefs and the back and forth, i am more of an idealist about this great document today than i was the day i became a judge. that understanding and passion about the constitution, about our declaration, about our country and our founding fathers -- they represent the basis for wanting to do the job. they are people we have sent off to war. i have a wonderful opportunity, a little bit what inspiring, to meet young people returning from iraq with very fresh but very difficult wounds.

as they were apologizing to me for taking so much of my time, i could not help but think and say to them that it was i who should be apologizing to you, for not giving as much as you have given to stand up for us in our liberties. [applause] so it is the passion that they have, the commitment that they have about our country in different ways, not in harm's way, that fuels' work not the court. it is not for joy, not for self aggrandizement, not the legacy. is what fuels my wife's passion to do her job.

it is the right thing to do. it is the right thing to try and preserve liberty. [applause] and i would also like to say, i am not one of those who will criticize or be on my colleagues are the institution. we have to preserve institutions, and there's a way to disagree, and these young people will learn it from us, that we can constructively say, "i respectfully but firmly disagree," without acting out a disagreeable attitude and reaction to other people. that is the way it has been at the court. i sat between my to do a friend's, justices ginsburg and

souter, for about 15 years, and i was not able to persuade them, but always able to act in a civil and warm matter, for people engaged in a common endeavor to try and find the right answers. when i go all little down, i go on the internet and lookup wonderful speeches, speeches by douglas macarthur, to hear him give that speech at west point. duty, honor, country. how could you not hear those words and feel strongly about what we have? how could you not reminisce about childhood where you began each day with the pledge of

allegiance as a little kid, lined up in the school yard, and then you march in, to buy two, if like a crucifix in each classroom. i think that those things remind me of why it is important to have that energy to get up every day and look at cases, whether they are the first amendment or the first section, things affecting our country, things affecting the kind of society we want and things that will affect the lives of these young people here. now, on with my few remarks about tonight, and hopefully i will be able to take quite a few questions. i should repeat that i thank all

of you look the part of this wonderful event, and all of you who have the foresight and planning and implementing this essay contest on being american. what a wonderful idea. i congratulate each of the young people who are tonight's winners -- i had an opportunity to chat with them and take pictures, and that is always inspiring. one thing about this job, you get all little tired, and did you go in and see your clerks and you are energized. you see these people and say, this is what it is all about. this is a good part. each of these young people have demonstrated, through their essays and the matured depths of their thoughtfulness and discipline to communicate their ideas effectively. i am sure that they edit it and

reedited and thought through and rewrote their essays, or they would not be the 27 young people who want out of 31,000. i assured them i would have been in the 30,000-plus who were left home. you demonstrated one aspect of what it meant to us to be an american. i grew up during a different time, under different ciumstances, in a different era. i will not belabor that. things were not as good as they are today, but they were good enough for me, and they provided the soil, and there was enough of all bus there for me to be here. enough to fuel changes that made it possible for us to be in this room tonight.

but recently, a college student asked me what i would recommend for them as our country continues through these difficult economic and financial *. i have to tell you, i was momentarily a loss for words, and i asked the assembled group of 20 or so college students how many of them have cellular phones, or rather, how many of them did not have self funds -- sell -- cellular phones. no hands went up. they all had cellular phones. none of them had known and life as young adults without that convenience. so you see today, without giving a litany, we have plenty.

to some, perhaps too much. in my travels, i have been surprised how many people think that prosperity is a constant, that things are never to be difficult again, never to be great challenges. it seems many of come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. they are owed air-conditioned cars, telephones, televisions. some of us, by contrast, fall that air-conditioning was the ultimate luxury, that having a television was something he saved up and when they could get -- one day you could get,

that a car, at least a working one, was something to be happy about, not something that you were owed. i'm one of those people who still thinks a dishwasher is a miracle. [laughter] what a device. and i have to admit that, because i think that way, i like to load it. i like to look in and see how those dishes were magically cleaned. but in this year up, in the era that many of us grew into adulthood is one where we expected life to be difficult. we expected there to be challenges. we hoped that by living virtuous lives and working hard, all would eventually work out.

but there were no guarantees, except the guarantees that we have the right to try. all around us, for the most part, we are in the same boat. there were many challenges, but with all of the apparent and real problems, most are around me, in savannah, in liberty, believed in the american dream, even though it had either a limited them -- diluted them or been denied them, for countless reasons. i have found it perplexing that so many of the people i knew as a young man and never made it beyond being -- i knew as young man never made it beyond being laborers, clung to the country so that no matter that they had

been denied opportunities because of race or education or other circumstances, they passed other circumstances, they passed on the hopes@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @' it seems to me that more and more, people are celebrated for their litany of grievances about this or that.

shouldn't there of least be equal time for our bill of obligations and our bill of responsibilities? what is required of us? i think we have an idea. i watched my grandfather. i think he is the greatest man i have ever known. i told my wife to yesterday with 26 anniversary of his death. why is it there are certain days we never forget that still bring pangs of either paint or a smile to our face? that is one of those days. but he is the greatest man i have ever known. i remember watching him in the midst of a hurricane in savannah, going out of the house

with wind blowing and rain driving down, walking through a foot of water to the corner to clean out the sioux were so our house would not flood. i remember when one of our cousins at his house burned down. he began immediately for plans how to rebuild another one before the ashes lost their warmth, and we did. in his view, that was required of him as a citizen, as a relative, as a man. when i feel overburdened or put upon in washington, i like to think of those who have made it here tonight as a free people,

people like my grandparents, like the man who thought was important to clear this work so that houses would not flood. those who made it possible. our parents, our teachers, and our friends. there are those were not and the past, who made this country safe and free, or who changed it in so many ways for the better. those who fought and died and gave, and the words of president lincoln, that last full measure of devotion. i have, on many occasions, when things were becoming particularly routine, gone down to my basement to watch "saving private ryan."

i cannot tell you why, except that it is about something important in our lives. after some the people had died saving private ryan, and i guess it starts with the mother being informed that three sons had died, wching out for lady dropped to her knees that she had lost three of her four children to war for our country. but after many had died to save private ryan, he turned and said, earned this. it earned this. and then, private ryan, now an

elderly man, turns to his wife for reassurance. and we have heard this -- tell me i have led a good life. tell me i'm a good man. that is a man who is saying, let me know that it was worth it those who signed our declaration of independence, as dr. templeton noted, could well have been signing their obituary or their death warrant. they were taking on arguably t most powerful man in the world, who was none too happy with them and old their shenanigans, but they were willing to commit all, to put it all on the line.

the final sentence of the declaration of independence as doctor templeton take a tone that is so boring, but reassuring, and it bears repeating. but for support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on protection of the dying providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. they were willing to give all to obtain liberty. what are we willing to give to retain it? you young students have already demonstrated, at your tender years, that you have an idea of what is most important about being an american, and they are wonderful ideas.

you know that it is bigger than us, but also that to build that great bulwark of liberty, each of you, and each of us must live lives were the of the liberties we have inherited and that others have made possible for us. in a sense, we each must hold ourselves as accountable for our lives as private ryan held himself accountable for his life. many died to save him, and many more sacrificed and died for us, for our liberties. will we one day be able to say that we have earned what they gave us? i congratulate each of these young s.a. winners, and i thank

each of you for being here this evening to also congratulate them. i will take your questions. thank you. [applause] >> justice thomas, thank you for that speech. it was refreshing, personal, and insightful. now, we will go to the face of the evening wear some of the young contest winners will have questions read to justice thomas. let me just say before we go to

that, i have a question for you, justice thomas. i understand you are on the supreme court. [laughter] can you handle parking tickets? >> yes, i pay them. >> alright. [applause] [laughter] ladies and gentlemen, tonight's winners -- and suzy asked if we submitted their questions -- as you heard, justice thomas has graciously agreed to answer some of them. i would like to have two outstanding individuals, brian jones, former general counsel to the department of education, and my friend, judge andrew napolitano of fox news, join me on stage here. they are going to read questions from the young people. [applause]

>> you can get in a lot of trouble for fixing parking tickets. here is the first question. justice thomas, since the civil war, what has changed the way americans view the constitution most, and why? that is not from me. that is from one of the students. >> i would have to say the 14th amendment, for a lot of the obvious reasons. the equal protection clause and the fact it assured the rights for the purpose of assuring their rights to free slaves -- it assured the rights to all citizens and gave dual citizenship. and if you read plessey versus ferguson, read harlow's dissent,

it is a fabulous, fabulous short position that i think just nails it. it is wonderfully done. not only does he show how to be a judge by separating personal views, he shows the intent. the dual citizenship of state and national government, and you have doctrines like the doctrine for corporations. the bill of rights applied to the states. if you look at the constitution, the first amendment says that congress should make no law --

it does not apply to the states. but it does not apply when we know it today. i am sure other things have happened. when you look at the big games and the civil-rights era, etc., all lot of it was for the 14th amendment. so i would have to say. >> you have actually given us a little insight already, but how did your experiences affect you as a person? . .

>> i have an opportunity to do things with my bride. we go to football games or we go motor homing. and you try to be as normal as possible with all the security considerations. and i like that. i miss that part of life more than anything else. that i can't just walk around. anonymously anymore. i really truly miss that. but i think, though, the way it's really changed me is that you really -- even talking tonight i'm very, very reluctant

to have a strong opinion on something without having briefs or opinions to read and think through. it slows you down. because you know, this job is -- it's easy for people who have never done it. [laughter] [applause] at what i've found in this job is they know more about it than i do. [laughter] >> especially if they have the title law professor. but it also is easy with people who know what they think before they've thought. [laughter] they know how they are going to come out and which position is the right position.

for the rest of us who have to decide and who want to live up to that oath to do it the right way, it is a little bit -- it is a lot@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n the constitution. i don't have to make those policy decisions. and i think what happens is that

you can get in these jobs and you can think suddenly that you have more authority than you're given under article iii of the constitution. i don't think we are entitled to do that, simply because we're judges. i think if anything, the job requires you to take on a more humble approach to judging and to be willing to say, "i have no authority to make those decisions." you know, you take -- i remember when i first went on the court we had a couple of cases involving hatian refugees. and my own views early on, unformed and new at judging at that level, was that i thought that these people should have an

opportunity to come into our country. but that wasn't a decision for me as a judge. so it was enormously difficult to balance that limitation with what i wanted to do. and over time you learn how to do that properly. but it is a discipline that when -- even when you think strongly about something, you have no authority to make some of those decisions. so the balance is struck in the constitution and in the laws that we have. and my job is to figure out as best i can what those balances are. and that is imprecise, i admit. but it has the benefit of being legitimate as opposed to saying "i have because i'm in a robe i can make up a new balance because i think the world has changed." that's not my job. that's what you elect people for and that's what you vote for. you don't assign that role to a

new regal institution up at the supreme court. [applause] >> the next question is, how does your faith or your world view impact your role as a supremeourt judge? >> well, first of all, i don't even know what a world view is anymore. you know, you think you have things figured out when you're young and then as you get older you figure, oh, my goodness, all that's wrong. i think the more you learn -- i think the more reluctant you are to say i've got it all figured out. some of this is beyond me. but as far as your faith, i think that it really gives content to the oath that you took that you took an oath to do a job right. you know, i hear people say they ask questions like, such as, "what do you want your legacy to

be?" what do i know? i'm not going to be here anyway when you have a legacy. but the point is that we're not in the job to establish a legacy. we're in the job to live up to an oath and to do it right. and that -- i think faith gives content to that. because you say "so help me, god." and the other thing is that there's some tough cases. there are some cases that will drive you to your knees. and in those moments you ask for strength and wisdom to have the right answer and the courage to stand up for it. but beyond that, you don't -- it would be ill legitimate, i think, and a violation of my oath to incorporate my religious beliefs into the decision-making process. and i don't think that that is appropriate. so i don't do that. it's more personal.

and it really helps me to do the job the right way and to do it properly. [applause] >> thinks as a person, how has your personal philosophy changed at all from law school to the present? >> wow. well, in law school i didn't have one. i was just trying to graduate. you know, in law school you really don't know a whole lot. you learn substantive due process. you try to figure out what emanations from the numbers are. you take your torts classes and your ucc class and you do your best. and i think what happens is you grow up. i mean, you've been a judge. when you begin -- it's one thing to learn a case. it's another thing to use that case to

endeavors. you know, and this could be totally wrong. it may be totally apocryphal but i'll say it anyone. recognizing that i disclaim whether it's accurate or not but it makes the point. there are many people who think that because they know a theory about law, that that's the same thing as actually judging. you've done both. you know the difference. it is up harder to do the judging part than to talk about it. so someone said to me that a great basketball player -- and they used michael jordan at his prime -- had been criticized by a sports writer who really knew basketball. and someone went to michael jordan or some other great player and said to him, "this reporter criticized you, this sports reporter. what do you think of that?"

and his response supposedly was, "tell him to suit up." [laughter] >> those are two entirely different endeavors. playing the game and knowing about the game. so i think that that whole process of learning a judicial philosophy -- my judicial philosophy is to try to discern the intent of t framers in constitutional cases, and in statutory cases the intent of the legislature. and to try to keep my personal views out of it completely. as best i can. does that make sense? >> sure. >> thank you. [applause] >> this one may require two answers. but do you feel that american people and government adequately

uphold the constitution today? [laughter] >> yeah. we'll move on. [laughter] >> that's what we do every day. let me don't know. i can't judge. i disagree with people about their approaches but i really -- my concern about our fellow citizens is a more quantifiable or observable concern. and that is how few people actually take the time to know what's actually in the constitution. and that's what's so admirable here, that these -- that the opportunity to learn about the declaration, the founding documents, our framers, et cetera, are all being made available to teachers, it's being made available to young students, it's reinvigorating

that sort of civic connection. so i think that whether or not i agree with how people come out, it's not the point. bull rather that this is an opportunity for them to learn more about that great document. and it's right here that you already have it and you're had thousands -- tens of thousands of teachers who have gone through this program. you have access to this program probably on the web and through -- you have 31,000 young people participanting in this great essay. that is teaching them about it. and once they have that tool and they have that understanding they could make up their own mind. and then we can respectfully disagree as people who are civil and also civic-minded. >> judge napolitano, this is going to be the last question. we're running low on time so please offer the last question at this time. >> justice thomas, where do our

freedoms come from the consent of the governed or do they come from our humanity? jefferson's listening. [laughter] >> i think jefferson felt that our freedoms were transcend end. and that we were -- they were inherent rights. and that we in order to be governed we were willing to give up some of those rights. so i don't think -- i tended to agree with ronald reagan when he said it. and i think he was simply paraphrasing jefferson. our freedoms do not come from the government. the governmenth, i know they're trying to stay on time. i'd like to say, judge napolitano, i've seen you quite a bit. and you've always been such a pleasant, respectful man and

intelligent. and i appreciate that. and i always enjoy your commentary. i'd like to thank brian. i met him as a student at georgetown. 19 years ago when i was on the court of appeals. and i'm proud of what you've done. and as i've said, juan williams i will admire until i draw my last breath for not because we always agree but because we do agree on what's important, the good things and the right things. and to each of you i want to thank you all for being here. you know, we get in the city and we can get full of ourselves. but in the end, we are human beings trying to do the right thing and pass something precious on to the next generation in the best way we know how. and that is these wonderful things we have in our country, our country and our founding documents. so thank you all for being out here. and i appreciate you. [applause] >> you can watch this program

again or other recent america and the courts programs at c-span.org. just click on america and the courts under the c-span series link. and join us for america and the courts saturday evenings at 7:00 eastern r

of votes against this scaptly qualified judge. the debate in the senate had an unseemly focus on out-of-context statements and speeches and an almost bizarre fixation on a difficult case whose facts almost seemed concocted for a law school examination, in which the decisions were the same as a majority as the second circuit and in which she never authored an opinion. that senate debate raised questions for many of us. and yet, the very difficult debate marked a supreme court appointment that will result in no significant change in the

usual philosophical line-up of the supreme court. clearly her record indicates that justice sotomayor is a moderate within the mainstream of the american judiciary. she replaces david suitor --@@@á

christie, there have only been a handful of decisions that have changed daily life for a huge portion of our nation's residents. brown vs. board of education. rolonda: -- roe vs. wade. in essence, these kind of foundation-shaking, daily-life making decisions don't come regularly from our supreme court, despite the fact that they decide dozens of decisions yearly. given that history, why should the american public pay particular attention to the supreme court, its congressman -- its composition or its decisions? >> good question. as someone who has been a practicing attorney both for her professional life both in private practice and as an assisting prosecuting attorney,

i can say the courts cover pretty much every aspect of american life. and i do mean every. i have done cases from divorces to child abuse and neglect, juvenile and criminal matters to wills, which are a huge source of conflict at the moment in the back and forth. some of which is very misleading about the health care reform that we're trying to do. and the courts touch on all of those. when you look at especially appointments to the federal bench, be it to the circuit court or the appellate court level or to the supreme court itself, those are lifetime appointments. the people that we put on the federal bench sit as judges and sit in judgment of cases which affect all of our lives for a lifetime appointment -- lives. for a lifetime appointment, look at that.

that is a huge responsibility. those decisions end up impacting all of our lives in ways we may never fully appreciate until we get pulled into a court case. you look at the case that came out in 2001 with lilly ledbetter. lilly's case was thrown out by the current supreme court, not with justice sotomayor on it, because she was not with the court at that time. essentially she was being paid less because she was working while female. to be told that you could be paid less when years and years of precedence said otherwise was a huge sea change. that came about because there ways different make-up in the court which was much more conservative and much more atune to a corporate argument than it was toward individual arguments.

you look at any other areas we've had questions, especially in national security and those other areas in the last few years and presidential power, the court in the way that our government is made up, really do serve as a stop gap on the other two branches. without the court serving fla in that capacity and really being interested in doing that job, what you have is the potential for a wholesale power grab, especially in the executive branch where that is a much tougher thing to stop. the court served as that stopgap in a number of cases in the last few years, but only when you have a diversity of opinion on that court do you see that happening. and that's why americans need to pay a lot more attention to what's going on with that. >> thank you, christy. >> doug kendall is from a -- founder and president of the constitutional accountability

center, a think tank and action center in d.c. it has been four years since the warren court and almost 20 years since william brennan, the architects -- architect of many of those decisions left the supreme court. i don't think there is a liberal wing of this court since brennan and marshall left the supreme court. is there any hope the supreme court will play a meaningful role in promoting the liberal agenda in the future? >> i think the opposite is more likely to be true. i think in the foreseeable future, and i think what we learned most in the sotomayor confirmation process, is how thoroughly conservative our -- are dominating both the judiciary and the conversation about the current judiciary.

let me make three points that flesh that out. first is a question of pure numbers. it's going to take well into the second obama term, if there is such a term, for the lower federal courts to start to move in a progressive bregs direction. it could well be that after eight years of an obama administration, a two-term obama presidency, the same five conservatives that are dominating the supreme court right now could still be there dominating the supreme court. so there is first a question of pure numbers. the second is just the conversation in the political landescape. president bush nominated sam leto to the supreme -- alito to the supreme court. by most accounts it helped him politically, bush. we have now had successive

democrats who have worked studiously to nominate anyone who would be easily labeled a liberal. and yet the fact of the matter is, that conservatives have learned to develop talking points that simultaneously speak and rally to their base, and they at the same time speak to the political center of the country. i don't think liberals have learned that trick thoroughly yet. justice sotomayor, for the most part, adopted conservative talking points, and pulled back from some of the more progressive things she had said in the past. that approach obscures rather than clarifies the very real differences in the way progressive and conservative judges interpret the constitution and the law. and then finally, knchtiffs are dominating the agenda of the federal court.

conservatives have gotten very good in recent years about looting their political objectives in the constitution. think gun rights and the second amendment, think property rights and the takings clause. and progress siffs -- progressives, i think, are rarely looting these decisions in the court in the constitution. we sensibly, in some cases, just avoid it all together, the courts, fearing devastating victories in a conservative-dominated judiciary. the result of that is we have most of the cases that go to the supreme court right now are cases brought by corporations or conservative organizations to move the law in a conservative direction. what we have right now, and what we have to face as progressives, is a judiciary that is not likely to be the engine of progressive change but rather the hindrance to it.

over the course of american history, that's been the more common type of situation where conservative justices have thwarted progressive political progress rather than as in the warren era where the -- where progressive judges have moved the conversation along and stood up to a conservative political process. and i think as a result we have to kind of fundamentally change the way we think about courts. we have to, first and foremost, say why the law itself and the constitution points in a progressive direction. rather than asking for judges who will bend the law in a progressive direction, we have to explain why the constitution and the law themselves point in a progressive direction. and we have to demand judges who will follow that law in the

constitution. and second -- and this is the most relevant to people in this audience -- we have to devote the political attention to the roberts courts that the importance of the rulings of the roberts courts merit. just look what the court did on the last day of the term. they decided whether they should hear two foundational cases that decided whether you could treat corporations and corporate expenditures differently than you can treat individual expenditures. that calls into question the entire 100-year system we have which limits the corporate influence on elections. if you care -- if you think that the bush administration was too beholden to exxon corporation and haleburton just think what would happen if those corporations could divert their

funds into buying elections. you see how important the federal cases are, and we need to respond in that fashion. i will just end with one thing with representative nadler to my left here, i think it is really important for the political ranches of government to respond to the activism of the roberts court. if you watch the sotomayor hearings closely, you saw a beginning of that, i think, very promisingly through senators such as al franken and judiciary commission chairman patrick leahy. but we have to be more careful with that. christie mentioned the lilly ledbetter ruling. we need to respond to that ruling by overruling it. there's no better way to spend -- send a message to the supreme court that they are overstepping

their bounds than by doing precisely that. i think what we need is a more coordinated effort to -- there's a lot of corrective legislation that's bottlenecked in congress right now, and we need leaders, representative nad letter -- nadler being a perfect candidate, who will view the roberts court ruling as an end in and of itself and as a part of a coordinated effort to spont to the activism of the roberts courlt. >> jerry nadler is a nine-term congressmember from new york's ninth congressional district. congressman nadler, sonia sotomayor is clearly a moderate, but there were 38 votes against her. some acted like it was a last

stand against liberal judicial activism. is this unique to the supreme court or will we see it in other kinds of nomnages to lower courts or other positions in the government? >> well, it is certainly going to be more prominent in a supreme court nominee because people pay a lot more attention to it, the media does, and so forth. you will see more of it in the lower courts, although the records are not nearly as folsom to make the case. and i think it has been tade said on this panel -- been said on this panel already, we're coming off -- not coming off, we're in the middle of a period for the last 30 or 40 years, the conservative movement has made a concerted efrt to pack the courts. they have pushed their presidential candidates, they have enlivened their base by so doing. they have affected republican presidential primaries by who is going to pack the courts with people who are going to be movement conservatives.

not just conservatives. justice stevens said about his nomination by president ford every single nominee was more conservative than the person he or she replaced. that is true. there are no liberals on this court with the exception of possibly justice stevens. there's no marshall, there's no goldberg, there's no brennan or black or douglas. you don't have that kind of leadership on the court today. you have moderates, and you have three or four, depending on whether or not you count justice thomas, movement conservatives who are really right-wing corporatists. and you have holding the swing vote justice kennedy who although far more conservative than the previous swing vote, justice o'connor, very conservative but not quite in

lockstep with the other four. and these four are fairly young. they are going to be with us for a long time. the conservatives have made this effort. they have done several things. they have had a chain of promotions from the solicitor general to appellate courts and to the supreme court. and they have a whole chain of candidates.@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ r v

this is the most activist court in the history of our court by far. this is extraordinary. it is also an activist court by overturning previous law. although roberts doesn't want to overturn this law, so he carves it out and leaves you with a shell in name only. he didn't lie -- he can say he didn't lie to the senate and to the senate judiciary commie committee and the confirmation hearings. i am glad i was one of the authors of the bill to overturn that, was a perfect example. it was 40 years of settled law. they have somehow gotten the mantle that liberals are activists as a hangover from the warren court and from 40 years of propaganda. secondly they have the doctrine

of originalism. they claimed that we shouldn't go beyond the law if you don't know the origin tent of the framers of the law. tell me thomas jefferson's position on abortion? i am sure he hm a well thought out opposition to abortion or other issues that didn't exist in the 18th century. the constitution exists of some glittering phrases, due process of law, equal protection that exists in modern reality. you can look at origin tent in modern reality, but nevertheless it is an appealing thing to say, and they have claimed a mantle for it. liberals or nominees, we have only had two presidents, only one nominee for the supreme court from this one, but we have only had two democratic presidents in the last 40 years

or so. and they have nominated moderates. breyer and beginsburg -- ginsburg are moderate. now, we have to start emulating what they did. we have to seize -- we have to show how their being activists is against the elected rules of government. i think they have a number of goals now which are very dangerous. number one they want to go back to pre-new deal and restrict the ability of the states to restrict corporate power. which is another way -- to regulate the economy, which is another way of saying restrict corporate power. this case where they ask for reargument on -- and which they look determined to overturn the ability of congress to restrict

corporate campaign contributions, if that happens, that will be a complete disaster. imagine if general electric can decide that it does president like some senator or congressman and puts some $20 million into one campaign out of corporate could havers. -- coffers. it will make national what you have with mayor bloomberg who put $100 million into his own campaign, but it would be with every campaign. this would be a disaster, and we may have to decide how to fight it. we may have to dupe indicate what they did. we have to press democratic candidates to nominate liberals, people who will be leaders on the court. justice sotomayor seems to be moderate, but you never really know with a new justice. so who knows. we'll see. maybe she'll turn into a great liberal leader. hopefully. but there is no really great reason to expect that, but it

could happen. we can pray. but we have to push president obama for his next nominee to give us someone who obviously is going to be a liberal leader having been a liberal leader either in private life or in the senate or in the house or in some other activity or in a lower court. >> you. nan aron is from the alliance for justice, working to promote justice for all americans. she's a regular commentator on these issues. nan, in the last 20 years we've had three republican presidents, none of them lawyers, but they have been careful and strategic about packing the federal courts. so much so they have almost made the federal society into a prerequisite for anyone to be appointed republican to the federal bench.

we've also had two democratic presidents in the last 20 years, both of them lawyers, and at least the first one didn't appear to take much of an interest in transforming the federal courts. our latest lawyer democrat has only been in office a few months. what can we expect? will the obama administration focus on judicial appointments more? will they focus on changing our federal courts? district court? supreme court? what can we expect? >> thank you very much. it is really an honor to be on a panel with these individuals, long-time heros of mine, and tom just became the head of maldef, which is wonderful fofert community, and for all of you who have done this workday in and day out, we are all very, very grateful to all of you. let me just start out with something that jalen owe, not

necessarily a hero of mine, but nevertheless, when souter announced he was leaving the court, jalen owe said, "a vacancy on the court? let's just hope the president is better at picking a justice than the justices were at picking a president." [laughing] and i think with justice sotomayor, we have a really fine jurist on the supreme court. i know that her record, and certainly alliance for justice produced several reports for her looking at her cases over the years. i think she will be excellent. she has a wonderful record. and i think we will see from her something like we saw from thurgood marshall producing something like a marshall effect on the supreme court. i think the dialogue, the conversation among the justices will change, not only because of

her substantive input, but also because she is a person of color. and i think that will inevitably shape a lot of what transpires at the court, and that's a very positive thing. having said that, it's important to recognize that not one court of appeals nominee has yet been confirmed by the united states senate. now, court of appeals judges, i don't know that many of us have a firm understanding, but think of it -- think of two numbers when you think of a court of appeals glug judge. 200 and 300. there are only 200 court of appeals judges in the country for 300 million americans. think of how powerful those 200 individuals are. years ago, when warren burger

was at the supreme court, that supreme court decided over 150 cases a year. now the court decides less than half of that. which means that these appellate-level judges are that much more powerful and that much more influential, and yet not one has been confirmed because of holds in the senate. what does that suggest for us? going back to the question that tom has raised, this president is going to have a very difficult time marshalling the political power in that institution to move his judges through to confirmation. we saw during the clinton years, do you know we saw durpg the clinton administration over 60 judges were blocked by senate republicans. if you look, and i think everyone has menged it, if --

mentioned it, if you look at that vote on the sotomayor confirmation, we only got eight republicans, and this was a nominee with a mainstream record and a stellar academic and professional record behind her. which means that no matter who president obama sends to the senate for the court of appeals to the supreme court to the district court, those republicans are going to vote against that nominee. there is no question about it. ds -- it's a critical issue to the right-wing base of the republican party. and even though this woman enjoyed broad public support, represented a critical constituency group and growing

constituency in this country, very few republicans ended up voting for her. so what does that mean for us going forward? one, the president has to make a priority of naming progressive justices and judges to the court. these are individuals with a strong commitment to core constitutional values who will be leaders and strong voices not just on the supreme court but the lower courts as well. two, it has to become a priority for our united states senate, and for harry reid, he has got to begin to work with not simply republicans, they are not going to vote for these democrats, but for democrats, the moderate democrats who are afraid ever standing up and voting for good,

progressive judges. he has to approach those moderate democrats. he's got to butt recess those democrats. we have to give those democrats, and we know who they are, confidence in standing up for good judges. we need to ensure that the senators on the senate judiciary committee step up to the plate as well. now we know that justice sotomayor was a little bit tim id at those hearings -- timid at those hearings, but she had a job to do, and that was to get confirmed. the senators on those panels have to articulate, as everyone has said, a very broad vision of why judges are important, why

courts are important, and why we need strong progressives on these courts. so we have all -- we all have our bit to do. i am confident that people listening will do our job, and we have to ensure that at the end of eight years of the obama administration -- and i'm an optimist -- eight years of the obama administration, we'll have these courts of appeal and district courts and the supreme court in doing justice around the country and protecting our prithes rights and freedoms for all americans. thank you very much. [applause] >> christy, you talked about the importance of what the supreme court does to the american public and then alluded that

justice sotomayor will be a different kind of justice. she brings personal experiences and professional experiences that are not currently represented on the court. and they will bring that unique perspective. it's also true that in our history there have been a handful of justices also alluded to who have been surprises. they are surprises from what was expected when they were nominated. in deed, justice sotomayor is replacing justice souter, who was a surprise when bush nominated him. given this information to the supreme court, what should the public do to influence justices as they develop, particularly new ones, to influence the choices, the kinds of experiences that we're looking for in judges and justices?

what should the american public do to manifest the very important interest in what the supreme court does that you talked about earlier? >> i think one of the best th á,@ @ @ @ @ @ r@ @ @ @ @ @

his name is jim havepl. congressman inhaas has had a hold on him since his nomination came forward. so he's basically stum stuck in -- basically stuck in limbo. it is something that's been bumbling up since the days of ed mees and the reagan ad mrs -- administration, and it's been a planned effort on the right. we don't see that same plan from the folks on the left, and that really is a shame. because if we're not exerting the same pressure on the left, if we can't be bothered to pay attention to care to make phone calls to our members of congress, to write letters to the editor, to work on these issues in our own town with our union groups or with with individuals -- individual

women's rights groups or all the different aspects that go into this, if we can't be bothered to do this, then the only voices people inside the beltway are hearing are loud angry voices from the right. which means we get moderate to right-link leaning candidates and the left wing candidate gets shut out all together. when i was growing up my granny used to medical me the squeaky wheel gets the greece. we need to be the squeaky wheel. pay attention to decision whs they come down. we talked about the ledbetter case. there have been any number of national security cases which have been decided. the five cases snead of being looked at -- cases instead of being looked at by the court were denied which would have been a classic battle between the legislative and executive and -- executive branches, but

they declined to take that case. there should be cases they should look at because they deal with civil liberties thank are enumerated in the bill of rights. they are our constitutional rights. they deal with so many things that impact our daily lives. if we cede the floor on those, and if we don't stand up and make our voices heard, then the only voices they are hearing are the voices from the federal society, and operation rescue and all those right-wing groups who fund raise on outrage that they manage to get from the right wing base. we need to do the same thing. if we are not talking loudly about what we believe in, nobody is going to hear us if we are not doing it. >> thank you, christie. you talk about conservative

activist, one of the things justice sotomayor was criticized for was anowledging something that i believe is self-evident -- that judges make policy. you talk about some of the other dialogue that was set by the right. how do you combat criticism that is based on something so ludicrous that -- as an assertion that judges make policy. as i said, if judges didn't make policy, all of those conservative guys wouldn't be interested in being on the bench. how do we combat that kind of dialogue? >> that's a tough question. i don't know that -- i think -- i mean, it was even worse than that, because what she said was actually that judges set precedent for lower courts, which is the most banal point you can possibly make about the role of the supreme court and it was turned into an assertion that she was saying that judges

make broader social policy which was in context absolutely not what she meant. so it is one off from the point you are actually making. i don't think you can ever -- you know, the confirmation process has bogged down to the point where we're talking about -- just about nothing in them. and it is all focused on the critics of the nominee because that's where the press sees the action, and the critics of the nominee focus on -- they have three cases out of 3,000 that she decided, a few snipets taken out of context against justice sotomayor and all these important issues about what the supreme court has before it, what it's deciding, what the court -- where the constitution points and these profound differences between conservatives and liberals about

these real issues get drown out. and one of the things i think was interesting about the hearing was how many democratic senators -- russ feingold, al frank general, senator spectre -- talked about we need to make this process more informtive. we have to make this about the many very real issues that the court is actually wrestle with and dwage. -- debating. how we get there, senator cole and senator feingold made some suggestion. i don't know that any of them have any real life in the senate process, but it is something that we should all be, as citizens, insisting upon. >> thank you. congressman, doug mentioned earlier that you had been a senator that helped overturn the ledbetter decision. there have only been a few cases where congress skews chooses to

overrule a decision made wrongly by the supreme court, and the prospects for getting them passed are always daunting. so is there a role in the future for these kinds of legislative acts that overrule decisions by the supreme court? is that something the progressive activist community should be focused on? >> it is something the progressive activist community can be focused on, but only where several conditions hold. one where the decision of the supreme court is based on statchtri not constitutional -- statutory not constitutional grounds. the ledbetter decision was a decision interpreting section 7 of the civil rights act and they completely went against not only 40 years of interpretation but the plain meaning of the text, and it was an egregious grab for power. we couldn't pass it the year before. we had a majority in the house,

the president signed it, we were able to do it. there are others, we should go through and do others. many of the very bad decisions are going to be constitutionally grounded and that you can't do anything about except for wait for a new supreme court or pass an constitutional amendment, which given the make-up of the senate these days is almost impossible. so there's one other role for congress, believe it or not. the supreme court has also done something that as -- i as a democrat with a small "d" find very offensive was the bernie decision. i found it offensive because it over turned a law that i helped right. butting that aside, part of the decision said that congress can't do something unless it makes a record that it's

reasonable to do and we the court will second guess its reasonableness of it. well, the reasonableness of something is a quintessentially legislative decision. it is not for the court, but they have made this ruling now. i presided personally over 17 hearings designed to make the record that section 5 of the voting rights act was still necessary. we did this back in 2005, 2006, 2007 -- i shouldn't said i presided. i was the ranking minority of the subcommittee at the time and later became the chairman. we went through thousands of pages of hearings, thousands of pages of testify to make the -- testimony to make the record. we made that record, and yet the court almost overturned it now. so we're going to have to spend a lot of time and record making an effort to defend the attack

on the supreme court. the other thing is making a record in a different way. one of the major thrusts of the bush administration, certainly, and one of the major dangers is the aggregation of power in the executive branch in the name of national security. under war powers the doctrine of the ability of the president, the unitary executive, the ability of the president to do things on his own for national security, we'll hold you in jail forever because you're an enemy combatant, without due process, the torture cases we're getting. we are going to have to be very energetic in pushing back against this. the supreme court by one-pothe vote margins pushed back against the most energetic, most extreme

claims. some of these claims go back to overturning magna carta. i mean, 800 years of tradition, by one vote. it is important to show that it was done. to show the torture. to show the reasoning. to push the administration now, to hold accountable people who violate our laws in the previous administration, the war crimes, all of this. the supreme court exists to a large extent above the political fray but also part of it. it was mr. dooly that said the supreme court follows the election sometimes to a point and we can push back on that. >> thank you. taking off from that, earlier the congressman talked about the notion of originalism and the only thing that matters is what the founders of the constitutio

meant, but there is a counter current that says the constitution is a living document and that all of us then have something to say about what it means and what it might mean in the future. what can the general public do, what can the american public do to try tro frame what that living document means in the future? particularly as we look to a future as issues that were never anticipated, like abortion that was mentioned, but also like gay marriage, that was never anticipated by the founders. what can we do to lay the groundwork for progressive decisions in the future with our constitution? >> well, i think conservatives on the supreme court have long articulated the view of originalism. that you go back to the origin tent of the founders to determine some meaning and application of the law to everyday problems.

and i think most of us recognize the founders of that constitution were a very small select elitist set of individuals, if i'm not mistaken, all white males, to name name one. doug kendall has done an awful lot of thinking and writing about this. we think as aonstitution not so much what those individuals thought but in terms of everyday reality of life. and therefore we've seen some amazing decisions come down from the supreme court on privacy, civil rights, some in terms of environmental profed exes -- protections. gun rights is another one that

gets caught between originalism and an evolving constitution. but i don't really think -- i mean i think that's the heart of the intellectual debate that goes on around the courts. but i think the debates are much more at this point a political one. to debate between origin tent and evolving notions of d.c.encey and -- of decency and certainly an underpinning of how wrins -- republicans talk about the court. but i think for us progressives, this is a debate about power. and we have to recognize the fact that in order to control the debate that takes place going forward, that we've got to amass political power and leverage around the court.

how many times did we hear repu@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ )u)@ @ @ @ r

-- put more sam alitos and more john roberts on the federal courts and on the supreme court. so let's remember thr there's a very intellectual decision going on with the courts and other groups are doing some great work of articulating a different notion of justice. but for all of us in this room, this is a political debate. and as much as we may not like the fact that the confirmation process has been dumbed down over the years, judgeships have been political from the beginning of the republic. even george washington's first nominee to the supreme court was defeated because of a vote he took on the j. treaty.

judgeships are designed to be political decisions. that's why we've got a president who nominates and a senate to confirm. so let's all decide once and for all that we're going to just beat the other guys at this game. >> thank you, nan. those of you in the hall, i invite you to join the discussion. if you would like to, go to a microphone and ask a question. go ahead, sir. >> i have a question. people who follow the general news are not able to understand what goes on in our country. secondly, we have the problem of the basics you're talking about. >> we can't hear you. >> talk closer to the mic, perhaps. >> the first point is that if people follow the regular news in this country, they cannot understand the issues. the news is not dealing with the congressman -- complexity.

but on this issue, the basic understanding of what you are talking about is not known in our country, and now in many states civics is not even taught in high school anymore. we have maybe a generation of people who need to be educated on this. >> that's why people should read firedoglake.com. there are a lot of sources and media sources trying to fill in those gaps. a lot of the media has been shortened down to 30-second soundbites for what everybody has to do. and the longer form discussion or, you know, intelligent debate source of shows that a lot of us grew up on don't exist anymore, although i think bill moyers still does a fantastic job on pbs on saturdayed, but the

information is out there, if people dig. that's where we come in. and making sure that people we know in our communities or our families or friends, know that there are better sources of information and can look for them themselves. that's a good first step. it is not a solution, but at least it is a first step. >> and what about the next generation? we all learn in high school that the judiciary is the third branch of government, but not much more. what should our teachers be teaching high school students and middle school students in order to make them emgauged in this process? >> well, obviously they should teach civics, but they should teach reality, too. and the reality that they should teach is that the courts have played a major role in american government. not just as umpires. to hear the nonsense in this confirmation hearing, the courts

are umpires, they just call the balls and strikes, they don't decide things. well, that's absurd. the courts decide very profound issues. the united states is one of the few places where we have judicial supremacy. the courts decide because they are final, they are supreme, and they decide issues which you can't second-guess them. another branch of government cannot second-guess without extraordinary difficulty. i also think we should teach the history of the court. the questions. the questions of individual liberty. how that has fared. the question of the incorporation of the bill of rights to be binding on the states, not just the federal government. the fact that property rights are elevated at almost times in the history of the republic except for after the -- after 1937 with the new deal, and the warren court, now we seem to be going back in the other direction, and the fact that the supreme court, for most of its

history, james burns, one of our best historians just wrote a new book on the history of the supreme court, has a major reactionary bow work except for a few years after the new deal and the warren court. and the other thing, which comes out nicely in that book and which any student of the court knows but would be useful to point out especially in terms of current debates, things are not foreseeable. f.d.r. placed, i think, nine members of the court -- appointed nine members of the court, destroyed the anti-new deal, anti-government regulation pro-corporation that existed, and every one he put on the court was able to say the government has the ability to pass wage and hour laws to regulate the economy. but then new issues came along. what about laws that came along to make it a crime to be a member of the communist party? what about laws that restrict free speech after the cold war? the f.d.r. went in one

direction, black and douglas in another issue, because of unforeseen issues, and you have a completely divided court from what had been uniformly liberal appointees? one thing we should also teach is new issues come up, and you can't always assume -- we can't even be totally, unfortunately now, we can probably be pretty sure, but you can't be totally sure that 20 years from now the conservatives in the court will all agree on issues that we can't foresee right now. >> i'd put $50 down that they still would be. >> probably. you can't be totally sure. . 1ñ1ñ1ñ1ñ1ñ1ñ1ñ1ñ

>> those amendments more than any other part of the constitution are the heart and soul of the progressive constitution. the framers of those amendments should be on a level of madison, hamilton, the people who are originally wrote the constitution. they are viewed in our history textbooks as drugs and people who did not know what they were thinking about. it >> scalawags. >> we are still learning, but history is now out of the ph.d history books and out of the constitutional historians books, but it has not filtered up to the supreme court and has not filtered down to the high school textbooks. you are right, we have to not

just talk here. we have to go into our schools and teach history right if we are going to turn this debate around. >> i want to ask you about how the structure of the legal profession creates a problem for getting progressives in the court. the with a hiring practice works for the lawyers who are identified at the earliest in their careers as being exceptionally talented, the ones who -- go to the best schools, do very well, a clerk for the best judges and so on, is it very easy for those attorneys to find jobs in the lead corporate side law firms? and actually, almost all of them do. it is very difficult to find a job early in your career and a matter what your resume says. there are just not the volume of jobs there that are available. what this means is that, first, someone could be a democrat in

good standing even though they spend their career helping drug companies get immunity from state law or helping cigarette companies get immunity from the verdict that they think are too large, but if someone spends their career working for a plaintiff's firm or a union firm or a public defender, they might as well as erect a sign over their head that says "communist" when they come up for a confirmation hearing because they have made a very good -- visible decision to not take the path of least resistance and demonstrates their liberal values. at the same time, when john roberts was up for confirmation, no one looked at the fact that he was a partner in a big corporate law firm and said, oh, this is a sign of his values because it is considered perfectly acceptable for a democrat to have that same job and work on those same cases and we do not impute an ideology to them because of that. how is that i framework we can

work within? do we need to push lawmakers to hold people who have john roberts resumes, you note to imputes of the on to them -- you know, to give you something on to them? >> the one other point that was left out -- it was a great question about john roberts. he actually hit his involvement in the federal society from the senate and the rest of the public until some enterprising reporter disclosed that he had long been involved with the workings of the federal society. you're absolutely right,ç thers almost, i think, almost one- fourth of the republican appointed court of appeals judges belong to the federal society, which as you all know

is the organization which encourages young, conservative republicans to become judges. it actually recruit young conservatives for judgeships around the country. and we saw during the clinton years that the individuals that belong to the aclu, the naacp, anyone who had been involved in work against robert bork's confirmation in 1987 was automatically excluded from the list of candidate -- candidates. i am pleased to say that we have submitted a slate of candidates to the white house of individuals who have spent time in public defender's offices, legal services offices, union side law offices.

president obama is about to nominate some union side lawyers for some of the influential court of appeals. but let's not kid ourselves. that is wonderful, but once these nominees hit the send -- the senate, they're going to be attacked based on their record. that is the work that is before all of us, to stand up for them and to ensure that the senators do not get fearful of attacks by the right because those attacks will come. but we have got to push lawyers from many different backgrounds. we have seen eight years of not only members of the federal society ascend to the bench, but also u.s. attorneys, prosecutors, and a large corporate lawyers. at the very least, we ought to have corporate leaders who have

demonstrated commitment to public interest causes. they need to have shown in their careers that they have done work in furtherance of the poror and people living at the margins. i think that is a good point and something that we really ought to work for. >> we see a pattern even with democratic presidents -- when you look at the lower federal courts, federal trial benches, if you look at the state courts, certainly, i can talk about new york. if you look at the state courts, you see people who come from legal aid. you see people who come from da's office is, legal services, all kinds of things. but the moment you get to the federal court, it is corporate law. people who were never involved in local politics or the local bench. the democratic nominees -- i mean, first of all, center

schumer, i do not mean to pick him out, but they form review committees@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @m

now the most experience non- profit attorney is jay secours loew of the american superior court of justice, which is denied jobs for the aclu. there has been a lot of research, identifying experience matters before the supreme court, talking about corporate capture of what they call the supreme court bar. and talking about how the presence of the supreme court bar, whether representing corporate interests or public interest has had an enormous effect on the court in public interest law. when theseç highly experienced advocates, including john roberts when he was an attorney , appeared before the court,

. have over the supreme court and bring it into our movement? >> onef the ways that i think liberals especially and progressives really need to do a lot of the work is in infrastructure building, especially in the legal areas. you look at infrastructure that the right -- the right wing started building when they put together the federalist society, when they put together a lot of the legal groups. they put together advocacy groups to back them up. they put together a very strong organization in the college republicans. the actively recruit from college republicans to find

people who do media work. the fund media's coverage of to do media training to go that they can appear on tv shows and learn how to do those 15 seconds sound bites that all of those talking head shows absolutely love. and you see that same thing in the way that recruiting is done for folks who are in law schools. if you are known as a conservative law student who is a member of the federalist society with in your law school, you may get tapped to a special clerkship for one of the more conservative judges. i know several of the judges on the d.c. circuit specifically do a lot of recruiting pretty heavily from the d.c. law schools and from harvard and yale. laura ingram, who is a fairly well-known talk-show host, used to be a clerk for justice clarence thomas. you have seen a lot of that through the years and the infrastructure that underpins that pays for salaries, pays for

housing, pays for a lot of stuff for folks who work on magazine internships with, you know, the national review or some of the other organizations involved. there is no liberal response to that. i mean, there is none. by blog every day. the little bit of money it takes to keep the servers going comes in a lot of times either from advertising revenue or from donations that come in from our readers who are fantastic for the website. i do work on legal issues every single day. we have had -- i know a panel that i did a couple of years ago with chairman conyers, he scolded me for sending far too many phone calls to his office and a couple of weeks before we did the panel because he thought i was just trying to say hello before we did this panel. it was funny, you know, we get a lot of push going on the liberal side, but we do not get -- there

may be the myths that george soros funds all of us, but i'm still waiting for that check. that does not happen. and on the right, this case who are the expert alumni, people in several different groups on the right fund a lot of that. we do not do that. we do not set the infrastructure up to push left-wing judges forward to my lawyers forward. we need to think about ways to do that. -- left-wing judges forward, lawyers for. we need to think about ways to do that. >> conservatives have done everything we have talked about. liberals on the other hand, people who have a lot of money and want to contribute tend to contribute to human services. and that is all for the good, but it means there has not been a lot of money to set up the huge foundations on the left. that is changing in the last few

years because we realize the necessity of it. the same thing goes for the judicial area. you've got to find it from those philanthropists. >> i thank you both for your answers. unfortunately, we only have about four minutes left. i want to give the panelists one minute each to some of what you think the action plan from here should be. >> you know, i think people being more involved is the plan that i would say. call your members of congress. call your senators. one thing i would like to see happen in the next few weeks would be for don johnson's nomination to the office of legal counsel to finally get approved. [applause] she has been held up for far too long and we need to make law, especially progress of law, a priority. -- progressive law, a priority.

we need to all the following what the robert court is doing and responding to them directly as their rulings come along. it is kind of hard to do because they do not always roll -- rule when you expect them to or how you expect them to. but over the next seven or eight years, the roberts court is going to be showing its stripes over the course of rulings. it could come very quickly in the citizens united fund finance case, but we have to look f . the warren court and ban them as an activist and start running campaigns against the warren court. we have got to start doing the same thing with the rulings in the roberts scored. we could see them quickly or overtime. we need to be looking for them and starting to , startingna as,

put these things to work. >> if the -- if we pressure the administration to say, we want to see you liberal, leading judges and the second, we want to see the administration take good, a legal positions. we want to see, for example, the accountability for the torture. [applause] and we want to see that the people who wrote the torture membermemos are not world up for consideration of prosecution. maybe it did have been intent or maybe they did not. but you cannot say automatically that is prosecution of the small fry. these are the kinds of issues that are very important for civil liberties. >> the last word is yours.

>> i would agree with everyone. i think we have to pressure harry reid and let him know how important it is to start confirming some of these judges, as well as christie said, dawn johnsen and other executive positions at the justice department as well. when our senators come home, you know, they get a lot of questions about the health care and the environment and obviously, that is really important. we ought to make sure that any time any of us meet with a senator we talk about judges. they do not hear from us enough. and there ought to be at least one question any time they are home about the appointment -- the importance of appointing strong and progressive judges. and finally, we have all pointed out a lot of this is local. and what the right did very effectively is in communities

are around the country recruited candidates for the federal bench and then helped to put together a little campaigns so that they would be selected by the senators in their states. we have got to do the same. it is a local issue. and we can identify some wonderful judges, but it means that we have got to coalesce around these candidates and work with them so that they are chosen by the bar association and the senate commissions. and we will be there at the national level to try to fend off some of these attacks. we saw more involvement, more engagement, more law professors, more law students so -- support sonia sotomayor than any other supreme court nominee. i know the enthusiasm is there and we have just got to act on it. thank you. >> there you have it, the

beginngs of a recipe to turn the supreme court into the supreme lee accountable court. i want to thank all of our participants this afternoon. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> ladies and gentlemen, please

give hand into a leader in the conservative movement, the author of "leave us alone", grover norquist.

>[applause] >> after the 2008 election, our friends on the left had some helpful by scores. they suggested that we move to the left and that we stop talking about taxes and spending. it was very similar to the advice they give us after goldwater lost in 1964 and after watergate in 1974 and after clinton won with the democratic house and senate in 1992. the other team always advises us. they say to stop talking about taxes, that nobody cares about taxes. this reminds me of the scene only in the movie when the bad guy says to our heroine to put down the gun and we will talk. our heroine is fulsome up to put down the gun, the movie goes on for another 45 minutes. they give us this applies

because they understand what strengthens the center-right movement is our opposition and our support for liberty. our coalition holds together because everybody here and everybody who walks into republican precinct are there around the table for different reasons, but they are all there because of the issue that moves their vote and brings into politics. a 11 thing from the federal government. they want to be left alone -- of what one thing from the federal government. they want to be left alone. -- they want one thing to be from the federal government. they want to be left alone. i served on the board of the national life association. [applause]

the gun owners who wrote on the gun issue simply wish to be left alone. they do not go knocking on doors, insisting á4@@@@@@℠d,rs@r they don't require every fourth grade child be talked books entitled "heather has two hunters." [applause] >> home schoolers simply wish to be left alone to educate their own children at home. all the various communities of faith in the united states don't agree but they want to be left alone to practice their faith and raise their kids. that is why our team can be ecumenical. we have evangelical protestants,

muslims and mormons who don't agree. but when our guys sit around the table we don't agree on everything. the guy who wants to make monday looks across the table at the guy that wants to go to church. and the both of them look at the guy that is fondling his guns and say that is not what we do with our tree -- free time. we tend to vote for the guy in the middle of the table does says that they will leave everything alone. being left alone in having a reasonable police force and a military strong market the canadiens off our back. one of the reasons liberals never like cops and the military is because they're the part of the government that is part of the list alone coalition.

we're up against the other team. and this is the coalition around hilary's table. everybody is there because they want the government to go still stuff from other people and give it to them. trial laurelawyers, the big city political machines, those people that are locked into welfare dependency and those that make $90,000 a year managing the dependency of others, making sure that none of them good jobs and become republicans. >> we have the government workers union. we have the course of utopians the one to make the rest of us perfect in their eyes. you have radical in our

medalists that have rented cars too small to butcher entire family into, toilets too small to flush, and on the sabbath, you have to separate the green glass from the brown glass. they have what they want the government to enforce. their list is slightly more tedious than of a kiss. they simply want the government to enforce each of their to do lists. the guys around left table can work together as long as we're stupid enough to keep putting tax money in the center of the table. if we keep putting tax dollars in the center of the table, and they can't get along.

if, we said no more tax increases and no more ridiculous spending and make it stick, the amount of money in the center of that table begins to dwindle. everyone around the left begins to look at each other a little bit like the second of last seen in those movies. they're trying to see who to eat and to throw overboard. the left is not made up of allies, it is made up of computing parasites. -- competing parasites. if we do not let them to us, they will chew on the guy next to them.

our job is to say no to new taxes and no to new spending so that we meet the new left, there are fewer than them and they are shorter. that is what the stimulus package was all about, putting $780 billion on the table so they could split up between their friends. the theory is as follows. we would have the government take a dollar from one side of the economy and taxes or and that and move it to publicly connected people over here. they dipped their buckets into the water and walk around to the other side of the lake. they poured this into the lake.

what we're doing is taking water out of one side of the lake and after we do this 700 billion times, it will be deeper than it was before. if you believe that that will be stimulated to have more water in it, then you will expect the stimulus package to work if you believe there is still the same amount of water as there was before, and the stimulus package is a good package is not good for the united states of america. [applause] our friends on the left are a

little bit frustrated as they see the country getting frustrated. they told themselves and us about how they had this wonderful social organization going on and they were great on the web and there were good organizing things. when you read their emails, they say that the contacts to congress are running 15-1 against the government taking over health care. where is there great organelle -- organization. we have a secret weapon on our team. it is a community organizer named barack obama. he, by threatening everyone's energy costs and raising taxes and taking over your health care and tax your insurance, he has organized a majority of the country against the democratic party and against barack obama,

read and as a policy. -- harry reid and nancy pelosi. we dodged one bullet when we did not go home. they told us to leave and we said no. we got organized with the two parties on april 15 and july 4 and the august revolt. every year, they write that something interesting happens in august. this is what happened. we happened. [applause] there is another mistake but we have avoided. that is that we have avoided the mistake that we made in 1996 and

1998 when we focused too much on bill clinton and his personal failings. bill clinton was a threat to the country because of the taxes and spending in the regulations that he supported an he more clearly supports now -- that he supported them and the more clearly supports now. -- that he supported then and keep more clearly supports now. this time around, we are focused with nancy pelosi and harry reid and those democrats in the house that are voting for higher taxes on energy. yes, barack obama is the guy who signs the bills at the end of the day. he is almost irrelevant. the damage is done by nancy pelosi and harry reid and the

democrats in the house and the senate. [applause] if big murdered -- is big government were a martini, barack obama is just the vermouth. he is barely there. let's keep our eyes on the damage that nancy pelosi and harry reid and a democratic congress are doing to our lives and our ability to function in this country. we are winning. [applause] >> our next speaker is a fox news contributor and a former domestic policy aide in the reagan and bush white house. please welcome you and jim

petersen. >> thank you all very much. -- jim pinkerton. my mother is watching this on c- span and so she is very proud of all of us. when i was backstage, grover said to me what jobe did i tell so he could steal it. i told him that i usually tell the joke that i will begin my talk by answering two questions. no. 1, 6 foot 9, and no. 2, no, i did not play basketball. grover said to go ahead and keep that one.

this is a serious time in our country. that is why you are all taking time away from your jobs to be here. i should say that for 13 years, it has been my enormous privilege to work with fox news [applause] although, as eric erickson said, fox is under fire. you have all been watching the effort to boycott and i think it is showing you that that is a small part of ongoing efforts as the federal government does its best to squelch what barack obama said. i also want to talk a little bit about how fox can work together

with the on-line community. i will come back to that letter. in the short run, the power of television and the power of cable news has been seen, very dramatically in these town hall meetings. it has had a huge effect. there is something about the drum of ordinary americans standing out to arlen specter it has had a colossal affect on the politics. this has been a television struggle. people say that fox is conservative. fox is not conservative, it just looks conservative compared to the rest of the media. [applause]

i think that is a good case in point. for example, when lynn sweet stood up and asked a question a professor gates, that made her look like a conservative because she asked a tough question. [unintelligible] when he stands up to robert gibbs, they say that he is a conservative. this is a major story. it will be interesting to see how much pickup it gets in the mainstream media. i will tell you right now, it will be up to all of you to make that story turned to where it should be. the good news is, fox had a poll yesterday and bought a 49- 34 margin, people are opposing the health care bill.

by contrast,@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @r september of 1993 as bill and hillary were pushing hillary care it was 54-31 in favor of it. in other words, they were 23 points ahead and still lost. we are 15 points ahead now and if we keep it up, we will win. so, let me close with some thoughts on how the all-american community activists can work with the rest of the conservative movement and make their own contributions. you don't have tv networks, a probably a lot of you are on youtube and so on. back in 2004, when dan rather

put out the report on the phony memos about president bush in an attempt to swing the 2004 election, it was the blogger community, red states, all the others, who picked apart the memos and proved them false. just in terms of a project for the future, as we think about healthcare we may beat this bill and john kramer was telling me remember, they probably always had in mind a fallback. they may not sell us on this but they may get something through. already got through inside the $800 billion stimulus package. there was a $20 billion proposal for health information technology. that is $20 billion to software vendors to digitize records. at new gingrich says this is a good idea. that money is going to get spent

to advance health care and permission technology. it will develop the capacity to analyze this stuff. this article, here, by a very smart person in washington writing in the august issue of the washington monthly magazine talks about where this $20 billion for health information technology is going to go. he is a smart guy. he is kind of a liberal. everybody should care about this. i started a blog but i invite you all to look at. even though the health care bill may rise or fall, there is plenty of stuff elsewhere in the government that is changing our lives and it is up to us to get the details. i guarantee you, more people

have read the thousand page health care bill than members of congress. that is the power that comes to us. it becomes our challenge. this is what we can do online. on your computer screen, i hope you're working away on this because that is the challenge ahead. thank you, very much [applause] -- a think you very much. -- thank you, very much. [applause] >> please direct your attention to the television screens from michelle blackmon. >> hello, i am congress will commercial bachman. i want to think -- i thank you -- having had the pleasure of

working with them on such hot topics as pork-barrel spending, capping tax policies and health care reform, i can tell you that the americans for prosperity foundation is second to none when it comes to organizing our loyal opposition. was this event wraps up on saturday evening, you will be armed with the knowledge necessary to counter the love to make a difference online and in your community. day after day, here in washington, we see the not so gradual shift away from free market principles and towards socialism, big government, old school tax-and-spend policy that we know will be destructive to the long-term health of our economy. this is in conjecture because we have been there and we have already done that. we have seen what this means for our country and for our freedoms. we still live with the consequences of those actions. go back in time with me for a

minute. lyndon johnson got us mired in the welfare state of the great society. jimmy carter's mideast policy helped give rise to the terror state of iran. bill clinton's energy policy and his efforts to block the exploration of american resources played a major role in last summer's energy crisis and in our continuing inability in our country to achieve energy independence. something that is completely possible. the list goes on. . . without the filter of the media. i'm so grateful that so many of you are here doing what you need to do to make that happen.

our new political background is all-american. you are it. you are the front line. you are the leaders who will defend and advance our conservative principles in the critical fights ahead and for years to come. i want to thank you very sincerely for all that you are doing to advance our cause of liberty and freedom. enjoy the rest of your conference. [applause] >> a columnist on foxnews.com, a contributor for "national review" online and our director, please give a warm welcome. [applause]

>> thank you so much for being here and great news to report, our numbers are up, we are catching them online. we are catching them. next year, we will be bigger. we have all the momentum on our side. let me ask you folks, how many were angry before americans for prosperity tell you to be angry. i will tell you what was manufactured. what was manufactured was this talking point. and where did that come from? george sore oast funds americans for progress and they got a secret memo posted on someone's website and they said that all of you guys were following this guy's memo that you were fake and manufactured and soros

funded bloggers. and they put in a press release to every liberal group. by the following monday, the "new york times" was reporting and every democrat in congress was talking about. who is manufacturing talking points. they are using his money to manufacture this whole story. you guys are real people. of course you are real people. they are shipping people on buses. they are doing everything they can because they are desperate. why are they doing this if they are replay of the economic disasters of the 1930's. they are doing because there are huge political dividends. they will do anything to increase money to unions, go back into politics to create a government-run health care health system. they can have cap and trade and

control every aspect of our life and take the money from our taxes and use it to subsidize the people they want to subsidize and punish the people they want to punish. the stimulus bill, why hasn't most of the money hasn't gone out? this is straight out of the f.d.r. playback. he called it relief funds then. they call it recovery funds now. we have a political class that looks at the 1930's and they don't see failed policies. so what you guys are doing is really critical and telling that our numbers are up and theirs are down. i think we are doing a fantastic job on attacking the public option on health care. everyone is paying attention. i'm scared that they are going to take the public option out of this bill and we are going to

being left -- without the public option, it's not socialism but close to facism and mandate that employers must provide insurance and everyone must buy it. they will regulate it every single way to micromanage it. the profits will go to private companies and the government will be in control of health care. so don't just focus on the public option. we have to kill this whole plan. no mandates for health care. we have to kill the whole plan. it's absolutely essential. [applause] >> i'm going to talk about cap and trade. the good news on that this week, four senate democrats have said they don't want a vote this year because they saw the pushback. nine senate democrats said it won't go for it.

and one of the chief attractions of the bill to them. and we have 10 senate democrats who said they won't do it unless there is a carbon tariff that would repeal the smooth-hawley. they are fractured. they were 30 votes short. they said, nancy pelosi, you failed. sit in the corner. we'll send rahm emanuel up on the hill and they squeaked it through 219-212. so when that pressure comes from the white house on the senate side, when they said it is a loyaltyy vote, we need to have done our work, putting enough grassroots pressure and say sorry, mr. president, i can't do that to the people of my state.

i need your help. now we have all been accused being a front for the insurance industry and the energy industry. industry isn't fighting these fights. they have said, the energy industry, we can live with cap and trade. the white house budget director said in march if they give the cap and trade allowances for free, this would be the biggest corporate welfare in history. you know what they did? gave 85% of the permits. this year, according to the white house's own analysis, the biggest corporate welfare program in history. why would they be funding our efforts to stop it. they're for it. the insurance industry is spending tens of millions of dollars supporting. because they know the public option will come out and once it's out, they will get

government guaranteed profits for life and will be forced by law to buy their product and subsidized by their products. why do they fight that? so are the pharmaceutical companies. you watch msnbc, they talk about industry-spoferted groups are behind all the groups behind you. there are groups saying they need reform and don't watch their own commercials. why would they be against it? it doesn't make any sense and we need to make sure when public options come out again, we don't let them get away with it. i want to talk about another issue that hasn't gotten much attention and that is internet regulation. and there are great economic perils. but as long as we have a free

internet we have the ability to organize ourselves, that is the difference between the 1930's and today. we can innovate around the media. we'll use the internet. we have a czar, one ever many in the white house, which has proposed a notice for takedown on the internet. when someone thinks something is untrue, they can report it to the government and if it's untrue go. they are talking about censorship of the internet. i don't think they will get there, but they introduced a bill just before the recess. new version of something called network neutrality, h.r. 3458, the markey-eshoo bill. this bill this bill would deliberately regulate the internet in a way that would destroy private

invest. they don't care. they say the government can stp in and run it like a highway. let's think about this. who does a better job of the internet, the people who run it now or the government running a highway? you can imagine how this would play into it. we have to protect our frequentlies on the internet. keep up the fight against cap and trade and we will beat the all-american left and take back this country. thank you very much. >> our next speaker is aol's parenting expert and blogs for anderson cooper 3630, you may remember her as a cast member on the real world san francisco and from numerous performances on abc's "the view" please welcome

our next guest. >> thank you for coming. thank you for the invitation from a.f.p. i'm going to keep my remarks brief because i understand they are running behind. i have been sitting through the sessions that they have had. i went through blogging 101 with so many of you here today. and the sessions have been great. there's a lot to learn. and i just want to come here today to really encourage you and cheerlead you. many of you have blogs or thinking about starting a blog and it's important. it's the best and quickest and fastest most effective of getting our message out. and i want to encourage you to not limit yourselves to political blogs.

i blogged for aol parent.com and i don't necessarily talk about politics in my blogs but it is difficult to talk about parental issues without politics being part of it. it is an interesting way to get our message out, to not always be preaching to the choir but to reach out to avenues that might not necessarily always hear a conservative voice and might hear what conservatives think through a liberal point of view. so i feel like blogs that are nontraditionally -- let me give you an example. aol, parentage, it tends to be liberal moms that are there. it is nice there is a home for conservative. there is a niche audience and i'm able to get my message out. same thing with anderson cooper.

they have been great at cnn allowing me to post whenever i have time, because i have five children -- [applause] >> the other thing through my involvement in cnn i'm involved with cnn.com and i can from the comfort of my home, they'll call me and say would like to come on my blogger panel and if i think it's something i can contribute to, then i go sure and i leave my pajama bombs on and put on a nice top and i quick find a sitter and i do it right from my home. a lot of the barriers that were up before are really -- i feel like technology has kept up with my lifestyle. i don't have to do it from a studio. i have done shows on cnn to

other things on fox and i can do it right from my home. if you are starting out, get yourself a great computer. don't be afraid to put it out there. if you don't want to start your own blog. for the people watching out there in tvland, there is a way to start without starting your own blog and that is commenting on other people's blogs. it can be discouraging as a blog are to read your comments. it can be demoralizing and it is encouraging when you read your comments and find them people on there who support you and agree with you and it gives you the courage and the strength to keep going. so, again, i just want to tell you how great it has been to be at this conference. thank you all for coming and for being part of the session, getting involved and getting involved on a grassroots level

because we are changing public opinion right from our living room, right in our pajamas and slippers with our kids around and being a mom or whatever it is that your's doing is no longer a barrier to making a difference. thanks for having me. [applause] >> please welcome writer and contributor for politicsdaily.com, matt lewis. [applause] >> i like that music. that's good. i thank you guys for being here. this is awesome. it's good to be here. i said this yesterday and i

truly mean it, you guys are not bloggers. you now 21st century online community organizers. [applause] >> and i think it's important. we aren't just writing stuff, you are changing the world and making america a better place. they gave me seven minutes ar a i have seven points that i think conservatives can do to actually make a big, big different. and the first point is adopt a win psychology. i firmly believe that vince lombardi, the great football coach said winning is contagious and unfortunately so is losing. for the last two years, conservatives have been demoralized by the left and it's time to change it. [applause] >> guess what, conservatives are winning. i do a thing called

bloggingleadstv. i do a thing called me and a liberal and it's on the web and we talk what's happening in politics. and guess what? they are worried. i checked in with one of my liberal associates the other day to get a feel of what is happening, they are scared to death about you guys. they really are. they are having conversations right now and the conversations go like this. oh my god what happened. i thought we had these people in their place. i thought we figured them out. i thought they were going away forever. it's talk radio, it's the blogs, we have to figure out what's going to happen. think of it, they got their butts kicked for a long time so they are going to ratchet things up. it's going to get interesting. guess what? there is an opportunity to turn

around that win psychology. 2009, we have races in new jersey and virginia and 2010 is going to be big, too. i encourage you. by the way, the whole thing about demoralizing your opponent -- one of the most potent forces in politics is to demoralize and mock your opponents. that's why they hate rush limbaugh so much because he makes fun of the left. the daily coats have been good at defeating. most of you don't love in washington, d.c. o'new york. you live somewhere else and you don't have to go to cocktail parties and be beaten down all the time. the second thing is, get the tools. no excuse for not having the tools. i mean get training. it's not enough to come to one conference and think you know

everything there is. i'm always striving to be a better writer. you can do that, too. go to conferences and read books. get the logistical tools, a blackberry or iphone that allows you to videotape things. a video camera might come in handy or audio record and tweet from your havend held device. you should all be on twitter. get net worked. there are a lot of people you need to know. get net worked with them. know who they are. i know this is a nonpartisan thing. there is a democratic party, but i do know that a couple of folks from the nrcc are here today, get to know them because if you are republican, they can plug you in. stay principled.

conservative bloggers too often made a mistake of just siding with the bush administration over things whether it was medicare or no child let behind. it is important to stay principled. if you agree with the republicans on something, say it. but do not become part of this system. the way that conservative bloggers are going to become more effective activists is going to be an independent voice and shoot straight with the american people. you have to have correct if people are going to take you seriously as a blogger, active it, as a community organizer. the next point is get the facts. there's no excuse for being sloppy. the left would love nothing more than to find you going off half cocked and writing something that isn't true or posting a

falsehood. one of the great things about blogging is that we keep the mainstream media honest. bloggers fact-check things. the "houston chronicle" talked about this lady who was a pediatric surgeon. they found out she was not a surgeon. do your homework, study up and get the facts straight. number six, stay aggressive, be on the offense. you guys are winners. keep that win psychology. and number seven, thank you for being here and thank americans for prosperity and their foundation and the activists making a difference. i think it's working. keep up the work. keep up the fight. thank you. god bless you. [applause]

>> our next speaker is the senior political adviser of americans prosperity foundation in new jersey. welcome steve lonegan. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. it's a pleasure to be here. i'm from new jersey and all those folks that came from new jersey and the rest of the country. my background is, we have had some outstanding speakers. i come from a pretty basic background. i was a kitchen cabinet maker. and i started my business back in 1980. if you remember that year coming off of jimmy carter. unemployment was 9%. things seemed hopeless for america. we seemed to be losing our position in the world, but we had this new president named ronald reagan and came into office with this idea.

he said these economic times, what we need to do is cut the size of government and cut taxes and put money back into the hands of individuals because they know how best to invest. remarkably the different of this administration that think thinks the opposite. in those years that followed, as business grew and capitalism, i saw my business grow and me and my family and those around me prospered. as i got into the 1980's, i noticed that government was getting to be more intrusive and invasive on the state level, federal level. more inspectors walking into my manufacturing plant with their badges and clipboards and testing devices and coming up with more rules and regulations and became more and more difficult and i began to see more competition from foreign manufactures that seemed to be

able to come in and trade more effectively. well, you have heard of all that how we're losing our manufacturing base. and i started to wonder, what's going on with government? i decided to get involved and i started to learn, study and read and began to understand truly what the difference is between a liberal and conservative because we hear this all day long. the liberals and we represent the conservatives. what does that mean? the difference between a liberal and a conservative is that the conservative believes in the spirit and value of the individual, the individual's ability to rise to the best possible potential, free of the shackles of big government to achieve their very best potential and elevate everyone around them. that's america. that's america. [applause] >> the liberal, on the other hand, sacrifices the value of

the individual for what they call the common good, for the state, for the collectivist good, in their mindkn@@@@@@@@ @r >> they believe we as individuals are not smart enough to make those millions of decisions every day of what is best for us in consumption, healthcare, for their families. they can plan better for every contingency from birth, mid life, death and healthcare. we see that right now in this massive radical legislation, probably the most sweepingly radical collectivist legislation in decades that could alter the course of america's future. we talk at length and we have heard about of course the healthcare bill and cap and trade. those collectivist liberals believe they can sit and plan very cavely every possible

contingency for your healthcare. , for your children's healthcare. they know better than we can. it took a lot of work for them to come one a plan. one single plan for everyone of us. ou that. that popular bill, h.r. 32 0. i want you to see what it is. this is the bill. folks, that's the health care bill, right? a little over 1,000 pages and within this document is the entire blueprint to the future of your health care. that's what the plan gave us. now, we know we are going to have to stop this bill that is a critical attack on everything and could alter the course of the future. they just don't stop here. they could plan everything. they con injuried this thing called climate change and ey're going to determine the

future. they are going to plan more. they came up with the cap and trade bill. well, you know, planners believe in planning. the more they plan, -- and what's important? the more important the issue, the more they plan, right? this is the cap and trade bill, folks. almost 1,500 pages and within this document and i want to compare the two -- i hope you can all see it, what's more important to the liberal left? health care down here or cap and trade up here? that's where their values are. they'll put more time and more planning into preserving their so-called environment and polar bears than your very health care. within this cap and trade bill, folks, are some of the most dangerous assaults on america's prosperity you have ever heard it. we are going to cap consumption

of energy and trade, trade our jobs is what we are going to trade to the four corners of the world. they call cap and trade, cap energy emissions and trade the carbon offsets, you have heard all about it. in the so-called free market when they create these carbon credits, an energy consumer comes in, which will never happen by the way, they get credits that can be sold on the open market, but there is only a limited number of carbon tax offsets that can be sold that will be in the marketplace in a global marketplace that american businesses will have to buy should they want to expand. if the russians and the chinese and the arabs determine that they can control the marketplace by driving up the cost of those carbon offsets by purchasing them and driving up the price by holding them, they can drive

america's prosperity through the floor, by cornering the market. and you see the stock prices driven up. by cornering the marketplace, the enemies can determine america's economic development and it happens in the marketplace. they can drive up the carbon tax offsets and we drive more jobs overseas. in the marketplace, sometimes bubbles burst and maybe there might be drops in prices. the company that met emission standards, they would have been better to wait for the market to drop. so the question is what is really behind this massive legislation? is it our climate? is it our health? friends of the earth said, did he core of any climate control

regulations must be significant income redistribution component. that is the redistribution of your wealth, folks, from america to around the world at our expense and that's the core of what you see. do you know how many trees they had to kill off just to print this? ladies and gentlemen, we are today in americans for prosperity to go out and fight for freedom like never before. we can and must win on these issues. losing is not an option. i hope you leave here with the tools we have given you. the email is the must ket of today's revolution. this is a revolution of ideas and we are going to will be this one. i hope you the technology, whether it is twitter blogging or blogging or emailing, use it each and every day. because with the challenge ahead of us, it's up to us to say what

are we going to do today to defend liberty and freedom? we have the momentum. and this is not a new battle, folks. this has been going on for 200 years. authoritarianism, it will deteriorate into totalitarianism. again, as you leave here today, i hope you are prepared and wil go out and use the tools we have given you and stand up for freedom and liberty. thank you and god bless you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, pleas welcome to the stage, former

pennsylvania congressman john peterson. [applause] >> good morning. energy. got energy here this morning? yes, you do. nobody's talking about energy. energy is the mother's milk of the economic future of this country. and affordable available energy. i come from 110 miles north. i grew up one mile from the first oil well that started the industrial revolution in this country. energy, available, affordable

energy is a must. every recession we've had from every time, we preceded it with high energy prices. the recession today isn't just housing, it was energy prices last year. 142 oil sucked the living life out of businesses and reported no profits if they used a lot of energy. as a country, we have had three presidents in a row that didn't value energy. there just wasn't a major issue. we have had 14 congresses in a row that have not had a priority on energy until the end of the last congress. why? it was cheap. we get a spike and we settle back down. we get a spike and try to do something, we settle back down. and we had a spike last year, $142 oil that crippled this economy. a decade ago, when i found out

in the interior bill that we put a moratorium on outer continental shelf drilling, i started to fight. and it was getting closer and closer and closer. and last year, we had the votes to win, but they pulled the bill. the budget that they passed in february of this year was because they couldn't pass it last year. they pulled the interior bill. we amended that -- we pulled that bill. the only two bills was defense and homeland security because they didn't have the votes. they let it go away. president bush took it. two moratoriums, presidential and legislative. what is our energy mix today? here's what we use. and how do we use it? industrial, transportation and

like that. energy consumption by fuel. this is history, this is the predicted future by our energy department. they're going to tell us that we're going to take wind and solar. they don't even make a line. that's going to replace this. i'm serious. that's the claim. it doesn't make any sense. now the obama administration has been very, very busy. not been reported. they delay the five-year plan for 180 days. but we all believe they aren't going to open up any outer continental shelf. there are huge reserves of oil and gas there. they have chosen to lock up shale oil in the west, five states, from one to two trillion

barrels of shale oil. shell did a study in conjunction with the federal government. $60 oil will work. they said we know how to do it. similar to the tar sands in canada. we can get oil out of there. off the table. the rome plateau, biggest gas field in colorado. seven years of prep work to lease it. they took it off the table. they canceled 76 existing leases that bush had issued in utah. they canceled huge leases in alaska. did you hear about it? no. but those are done. this is an interesting one, woody biomass has grown by 1%. pelletst stoves. but we can't use it if it comes

off of federal lands. they don't want to cut a tree down. and the courts helped them. instead of the five-year plan, that's in limbo. what are the plans in the future? the budget will remove every tax incentive to produce oil and gas. they aren't going to rich companies, but to go after hard to get energy. we give them a tax break to get them to try. they are going to put a 13% excise tax on the gulf of mexico. that's our own personal energy. they will put a 13% tax on it. 80% -- they hate big oil. they just hate big oil. 80% of our energy is produced by little guys. big oil are the marketters. they have legislation to give e.p.a. control. it has been regulated by the states for 30 or 40 years.

it opens up those seems down there when they force water in and allows the gas to come out. i'm going to tell you, 19 years in the state government, eight years in local government, 12 years in government, the average guy can't teal with that. we found a ton of gas this this country. carbon tax, tax and give, give away our jobs. that's what the carbon tax -- and there is another thing in that bill that gives the citizens the right to sue if they think they have been harmed by climate change. nobody's talk about that. i read it the night before last. renewable electric standards are in that bill. 25% has to come from renewables or we pay a fine. it will eliminate canadian tar

sands oil and heavy oil from mexico -- mexican crude. folks, the future of america is in jeopardy if we don't have an energy policy. china and india are prepped to take it. their energy policy will hand them to them. because we won't compete. available, affordable energy is the mechanism of our future. if we don't have a vibrant economy we will never have the resources to pay down the debt. if we don't drill, opec will. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage national blogger with hot air.com, ed