more to almost 0%. that means that almost everything seems like a good deed until interest rates move back to their normal range. we have created new baubles everywhere. around the world, you know when the interest rate is low that you are not interested in holding capital. you are interested in borrowing someone else's capital. . .

it is not just the fed. is the european central bank. it is governments all over the world. they give us another shot of tequila, more and bigger loans to deal with the risk that we are ready to calm. the times are great. now people are boring again. the interest-rate are so low. it isn't that a bit short term? what happens when the interest rates began to climb again? then the government will step them. isn't that great? that is great for some time. a crisis that was at least partly the result of too interest-rate and too much debt in bad investments and a safety net for the financial industry that made too many people take excessive risks have been dealt with now with even lower

interest rates, with even more debt, with even more bad investments. it is a stronger safety net for the big companies, the big banks and financial institutions. no lener will be in doubt that they will be given the money back from the taxpayers is the worst happens. the solution is the problem. that is why we had the problem in the first place. vernon smith says this in our film "overdosed." in a way, we are back to where we were in 2003/20041 way said, that is great. at last a sigh of relief. now we are out of the worst times.

the worst storm has passed a lot of stimulus has helped us. the difference this time is that now we are taking on much, much more debt. no one has paid his debt after the crisis. there is a bizarre ponzi scheme or the next institution with a larger pocket but just stepped in and takes on that debt. when they cannot pay its, the next person does. when we had european banks and european companies ready for bankruptcy, the european state government stepped in and pay for it. now the european countries and state and governments are in a crisis because they took on so much debt. then the european union had to step in with $1 trillion bailout package last week. we see the same thing here of course. fannie mae and freddie mac can take on bad debt. then the federal government can step in and take on fannie mae and freddie mac's debt.

who is going to save the european union? weekends with the problems under the rug for a while. after a while, we need another rug to sweep that run under it. in the end, we will need a really, really big rug. we are focusing now on prius. we are focusing now on portugal. there the country's system to be the most shaky for the moment. they are not alone, far from it. they face a budget deficit that is almost greek. the american public debts within two years will have the same level as portugal. i insert john mitchell will scare you more about these problems ahead. we have all the unfunded liabilities for retirement and health care. if we are not going to reform the systems, then we are glad to have to pay in the european

union and the that state about 8% of gdp every year to deal with that. that is it obama care does not add a single penny. as a market factor put it, at the problem was socialism is that sooner or later you'll run out of other people's money. right now we are running out of our children's and grandchildren's money. for a moment and might feel safe, especially if you have reserve currencies like the dollar. that is what they said the lehman brothers as well. the markets were still interested in lending them money but did they still believed in them. its agreement brothers 158 years to build that credibility. it took in the weekend to visit one people understood that they will not be able to put their financial house in order.

we have tried to bridge this recession the bridge that we built was so expensive that we will have problems with the growth rate in the future. it will be a problem to build something more out to this bridge. it is a bridge to nowhere, in other words. i am an optimist by nature and because of my historical studies. partly because i realize that people always make mistakes. we make horrible mistakes. yet, we created the rich civilization ever. we will probably be able to deal with these problems as well. the reason why last year was so horrible was that it was only the second best year in mankind;s history when it comes to the total production of goods and services. it was so horrible because we

all thought it was going to be the best year. we can do it. we can deal with these problems. it takes a lot of creative destruction. it takes real investment and hard work. that is the problem. thomas edison said, opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. the road to recovery is missed because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. if we can get this message to her about the difficulties and about the possible solution, then we can do it. time is of the essence, a special with the debt we are building. thank you. >> we have a few minutes for

questions and we will try to provide for each of our speakers. if the have a question, wait for the magic microphone to reach you. speak up. he would like to start? -- who would like to start? >> on monday, you are going to try to lift a little bit of the bill as to what you think the next crisis is going to acquit. >> i'm telling you that you must sell now. this film is going to lick it a couple of different scenarios. the problem is that we see bubbles in so many places and so many categories.

the most dramatic right story is the one about government debt and how we never really dealt with the losses in the financial sector. government just the debt over. now the market is saying that they look like the bad deals out there. why should we keep providing them with these funds? greece could a started this last week. i do not know if you know how bad things were last week. it is not just greece. it is the whole european banking system. who owns the creek that it is the german and the french bank. what happened last week is that we saw a post-lehman brothers

story. banks began to lose trust and one another. -- in one another. they said that give ourselves a bailout. when the germans finally accepted, it was $1 trillion. creece is tiny. it is the tiniest of countries. if it were an american state, i would not have even heard of it. if this continues in portugal or italy -- if this begins in one of these countries, it will continue with the others. if britain did not have the track record that it has, we would have seen the same problem in britain we really need politicians who are ready to

explain that we are going to see some difficult years ahead. we have to plan on how to deal with this and regain the confidence of the market. it is an incredible problem right now. there is a lot of capital on the market. we still have the story about american markets and how this crisis shows they are in good health. they made a lot of bad decisions in strange stimulus packages. they can spend a lot of money. enlarge their resources have been going there and really build bubbles. they are beginning to unwind. the chinese government decided they will be the world economy.

they really have a command and control lending spree. they are starting to do with that right now. they are talking about this gigantic stimulus package. we are learning it is not just the stimulus package. local government and banks have probably learned about eight times more than that entire stimulus package over this last year or so. that is one to have a tremendous of that. we have these debt and bubbles. we have to do with them precisely at the moment that this bridge is about to come

down a little bit. that worries me. >> our next speaker is a senior fellow here at the cato institute in a top expert on tax reform. you probably know him as a strong advocate of a flat tax competition. he is a very strong voice and those discussions. he was an economist for senator bob packwood. he also served on the 1998 bush/quayle transition team.

he was the director of tax and budget policies for citizens for a sound economy. he holds a bachelor's and master's degree in economics from the university of georgia in a phd from george mason university. today he will be talking about america's impending disaster. >> that is the most recent introduction. i only have 10 minutes to talk about a topic that needs 10 hours, america is impending fiscal disaster. johann covered some of it. i hate going after johan. i have an and knowing the new york accent. he has eight suites danish accent. let me direct a couple of

numbers to give you a sense of where we are. when bill clinton left office, the federal government spent 18.2% of gdp. whenever we produced, when bill clinton left office, the federal was grabbing 18.2% of it and read is repeating its most in an inefficient and harmful way. we thought bill clinton was a big government enemy. after eight years of bush, with republicans in control of the house and senate, what happened? the federal budget virtually doubled from $1.80 trillion to $3.50 trillion. federal spending of the gdp went up to about 24% of gdp. an enormous, unprecedented increase.

obama comes into office promising hope and change. what does he do? he gives us exactly the same spending policies as bush. bush gave as a so-called stimulus in 2008. a bum guesses a so-called stimulus in 2009 that did not work. obama gives this government run health care. it made my job very easy. i went back into all my papers. i crossed out the bush pose a name and wrote in obama's. all this bad news that we have seen in the last line from five years is actually just the tip of the iceberg. he could to the congressional

budget office website and you look at the long run budget forecast coming they do something going out in 75 years. let me give you a copy that. --caveat. [unintelligible] a lot of it is just based on demographics. what do we have in terms of entitlement programs? what is one to happen to the american population? how many younger workers are coming into the system? if you live at the long-term forecast, we are certainly probably wrong -- they estimate that federal government spending which today is around 25% of gdp, by the time it to be between 45% and 57% of gdp. that dishes on the federal level. 45 sir to 67% of our economic output will be consumed by the federal government spending. if you add in state and local government which is right now at 13% of gdp in and you can see that we will be somewhere between 60% and more than 80% of

gdp consumed by government. even johan's country does not have this. if we are all this eating cod and herring, we will all the swedish. what does it mean? if we have a federal government that big, it almost certainly means you have a giant tax burden as well. i want to talk a little bit about what comes along with the pending fiscal disaster that to be a value added tax. this is our armageddon battle. they said obama care was waterloo. we what -- lost waterloo. that is just one thing. now we are having to look at

what they are going to do to finance of this giant government spending that is coming down to fight. and given that the evidence from europe, they fit in value added taxes, often claiming they were just claiming they were going to reduce or get rid of other taxes or claiming that this was not a plan to increase the burden of government spending but to make the tax system work. all the rhetoric we are seeing are making the exact same arguments we solve in your 25, 30, 40 years ago. what is the evidence show from europe? it to go back to 1965 before year pad that the added taxes and you look at the data about what was the size of government, what was the size of the tax burden, you will see that

government spending or maybe a couple of percentage points higher than we had in america at the time. since 1965, government has gotten bigger in america. the tax burden has increased. in the grand scheme of things, not that much. we have gone of a couple of percentage points. in some sense, that is a victory. we held government in check. in europe, government spending exploded. and these this was a better way of raising taxes. what do you see when you look at

income tax rate? what you see with a look at the burden of profit taxes? tax rates have come down. the overall burden have gone up. i can say with 99 putin 9% confident we will see exactly what happened in europe. the dying government we will have will be matched by a new, it disturbingly dangerous tax mechanism we will be in a position where there is no fundamental fiscal difference between america and europe. only america is about 30% richer than western europe on looking at measures such as per capita gdp. there is a reason america is about 40% richer than europe on individual consumptions that looks at disposable incomes. we have not made the same mistakes he has made. the bush/obama policies are a down payment on this entitlement tsunami that is soon

to sweep over america. it is just a way of letting the politicians know to go hog wild. go ahead and spend to your heart's content. if that happens, it happened a dead body of the cato in city. that is my pledge to you. thank you. [applause] if anyone has a question, it does raise your hand. the microphone will come around. i will be happy to hold the cord. any questions? did i depress everybody to much? back there. >> you talk about repaint the money there were lent by the government.

david sent out a good blog about it. i thought it was outrageous. i would like to hear your comments. >> the question is about general motors running and ad say we pay that the government in kabul. that was when it the most despicably most dishonest things i've ever seen in washington. they lied more than a politician. it says something. they did no such thing. what they did was they access a different style of government money and moved it over to suppose that the off another government liability. it did not change the total

amount of money that taxpayers were involuntarily forced to put into general motors. it did not reduce the ownership of general motors. it did not reduce the giant subsidies it was really a spectacular level of dishonesty. it shows the dangers of going down this path of corporatism were government and big business climb into bed together you get some really nasty offspring. >> you said it is an 99.9% certain that [unintelligible] could we try to do without experiment for a moment? what if we eliminated the income tax and corporate tax completely, every tax lawyer with is their job and replace its by 22%. would that be more efficient way of raising money? >> there is no question that a value added tax per dollar raise is less destructive than the

current monstrosity we have known as the internal revenue code. it is a single rate consumption based tax. it is just a flat tax in a different way. it taxes your income one time at one low rate but did i have no problem with a bat of a theoretical con job. i can size -- i fantasize about a world with a [unintelligible] if i'm not a fantasize about that, i will take a bat in stick. i would rather have the tax that the cayman islands with neither. it to be big improvement. here is the problem if we were to go down that path, you have to make sure that the income tax is very -- buried 6 feet under

the ground with a foot of stuff on top of this a will not spring up again. that means not as revealing the sixth amendment. in 1895, the supreme court only enroll the income tax unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote and that is when they considered the constitution. we will probably have our supreme court say it would be constitutional by a 7-2 vote. we will not have to repeal the 16th amendment, we will have to replace it with something so ironclad that even judges sotomayor when not be able to read the tea leaves. we would have to have strong language that would have to pass by a 2/3 boat in both the house and senate.

it would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. how many states do a half with estate market legislatures? what is that?

we cannot even passed a budget. in reality, it is not going to happen. we have to stop it. we have to save america from becoming a welfare state. we are yardy halfway there anyhow. we do not want to go farther down the path. >> they say that somehow they are being more efficient. the fact that they are paying at every stage of production,

how did this to systems contrast? are we at a disadvantage? >> we are at a disadvantage in the sense the european nations have lower corporate tax rates than we do. every single european welfare state, even sweet, has a lower tax rate been america. the average corporate tax rate in the eu was 24.2%. we are at 35% at the federal level. we are shooting ourselves in the foot. that is just one letter of attacks. when you factor in personnel income tax and capital gains tax, he can have income taxes as many as four different times. yet mr. adding the streets together. it is really penalizing american productivity and competitiveness and hurting american workers. some say that is a good reason to do a vat and making needed to lower corporate taxes. do not believe it for a second. even in the unlikely possibility, it could only be in the short-run. what do politicians to about tax policy?

what motivated them? income redistribution tables. if we do tax policies a, the top 10% will have this offense and the bottom 10% will have this at that. with all is to make sure we are penalizing the producers and the entrepreneurs. i can guarantee you you are going to see them all say that this is going to tax poor and middle income consumers. how are we going to balance it out? where 20 tax those evil, bad rich people. that'll be the political map, some -- political mechanism that will lead to excessive risk-taking in on japan nation. poor people will be paying a higher value added taxes. then we will have a weaker economy. every economic theory known to man and women say the same thing, you have to have capital formation the marxist and the socialists have an idea that government can do the saving but of we have seen that it does not work so well.

everyone agrees to have to have saving and investment. what is it that is subject to the most onerous and punitive taxation? it is income that has been saved and invested. they will go out along with the value added tax. heaven forbid you do not maintain that distribution of tax. you continue down the slippery slope. that terrifies me. that is why we are fighting against it. thank you very much. [applause] >> as you can see, a number of our policies that are quite passionate about the policy areas they were again and what they do. barnett speaker does so in a slightly different way. chris preble happens to work on my floor which i used to

dominate with my booming voice. i was completely superseded by chris. whenever he sees an editorial, he will be off to the races for a good 20 minutes that is because chris cares about what he does. he is a very productive member of the cato team. it was published by cornell and university president. interposes a new grand strategy to national security. he is the author of "editing iraq -- existing iraq." he has published over 100 articles and major publications including all the major newspapers and magazines that to hear all familiar with.

he is one of our most popular speakers in the national press. before, chris taught history at st. cloud university. as he mentioned, he was a commissioned officer of the night states navy and served aboard the uss navy. he does look a ph.d. in history from temple. he will be talking to us about america's approach to combating terrorism. [applause] >> thank you. dan mentioned he is going after johan.

i hate going after dan mitchell. he is known as being very funny and engaging, even when the subject is really depressing. he was less money today. maybe that is because the subject is really, really, really depressing. that is where we are. i am always stealing with depressing topics. today is no different. as we approach nearly a decade of aggressive u.s. policies to combat terrorism, the results of these policies should obtain still belugas. americans are still not feeling as secure as they feel they should be. terrorism is still very much with us. though they pale in comparison to the 911 attacks, new attacks reminded that terrorism continues to do us harm politicians remain enthralled

by the specter of terrorism. alarm is them and fair makes any reaction to terrorism seem a viable and politically callable. rather than dispassionately address this topic, our national leaders often hyped threat for political advantage by anticipating terrorist strikes. this struggle we are engaged in to address this problem exists for a good reason. policymakers, the media and the public black a strategic

understanding of terrorism. the lack an awareness of the appropriate responses to it. terrorists have many different motivations. we should not assume that they all approach these issues in the same way. there is often a common strategic logic. understanding this can help rebuild some strategies to dissipate their efforts. consider the obvious the do terrorism is political violence that is byron's that is politically motivated, a directed at civilians primarily. it is typically used by non- state actors. the intent is to raise the cost of the state's policies and to convince that state to take actions that ultimately harm the state and help the terrorist group.

they also hope to increase their power and prestige. their goal is to elicit a response. these are very weak organizations by their nature. they count on a very strong country like the united states to lash out and respond in misdirected ways. a lot of times that violence is directed inadvertently to the communities in which the terrorists operate and hide. by doing so, they elicit additional support and drop in new recruits. we know we have these great ambitions. they left the means to achieve them on their own unless their target alters their behavior in ways that are down to the terrace. this is the central theme of a new book that just came up that second-edited with my colleague. "terrorizing ourselves." >> the central organizing theme

of our book is that by addressing terrorism dispassionately and confidently, we can take control security as a tactic to make it ineffective. that is pretty ambitious. we think it is doable. at vlsi, this project is the culmination of a three year initiative the we've launched funded by the atlantic philanthropies. we have organized a number of meetings. the book draws on many of the people who a participated from the outset. it includes chapters on the whole range of subjects about communication strategies and thinking about the misconceptions about what drives people sit and gaze in

terrorism. i will not go in the details but i will answer any questions. beyond those specific proposals, it documents the many ways in which this climate of fear mongering that we are insisting under exacerbates the threat. it should be obvious but it sometimes bear repeating. terrorists get their name for a reason. fear is there coin. the benefit enormously by the nightmare scenarios and self- defeating concepts of horrible things that can happen to us. they see the way in which our actions have been so self- defeating, we brought needless force, less freedom and we did wealth. we explore all the strategies in this book. we try to undermine support for

the counterproductive approach and build support for a constructive one. the specifics that we go into in the book document what 8 unwise and effective counter strategy -- counters and strategy would look like. providing absolute weapons against all attacks is impossible. a government that is trying to protect everything is protecting nothing. although there are not as common as they are made out to be, terrorist will bide their time and seek opportunities to stage a dramatic attacks and all that we can expect this to prevent what can be prevented and recovered well from what cannot. that means we have to prioritize. counter-terrorism strategy must include policies to ample trade and disrupt their organizations. control access to weapons of mass destructions and their precursors such as nuclear materials is vital. target unlawful surveillance is essential.

we can rely on technologies to do that in an efficient and lawful way that does not undermine our liberty. we also need to take reasonable cautions against certain sectors of attack but we need to think about this carefully. the federal government could not secure thousands of bridges, sports stadiums, airports, subways, shopping malls, skyscrapers, nuclear power plants, i could go on and on quantum think about all the different things that we could classified as critical notes of infrastructure. yet, the federal government assumes that they have the ability to do these things and they're well suited for dealing with these challenges half and can do so in an efficient way. in many cases, they cannot. one last thing. policymakers who promise perfect security are committing the leadership of practice.

likewise, threat exaggeration is demonstrably harmful. pandering to fears about terrorism should be a political liability. the ultimate outcome that we should see is that the political climate where fear mongering is virtually absent and people are punished at the ballot box for exaggerating the threat that is posed by these weak and ineffectual groups.

this will occur naturally. and we talked about it in the book. if we disseminate information about groups, they're likely ability to carry out attacks and to dial down the rhetoric. i will close with this. the approach that we have seen here in washington since 911 is counterproductive and should be abandoned. policy must be presented on the idea that a response to terrorism does most of the work of terrorism. carefully measured responses tonight terrorists the upper hand they seek and cannot achieve on their own. to teach counter-terrorism will deny the false perception among the groups in which the organizations an audience from which there are appealing that there are powerful. they are not. instead of overreacting to remotely possible war and possible apocalyptic scenarios, the nation should addressed real threats while existing the confidence and resilience befitting a great and powerful nation like the united states. the new world of the patients that makes information essentially available instantaneously will convey this confidence very quickly terrorists will learn that their approach cannot be successful. to the extent that we could ever said that we have truly defeated terrorism, it will occur when we understand that terrorism cannot

defeat us. thank you. [applause] jerry was very good that the cue cards. that means i have lots of time for questions. i would be happy to take questions. >> you did not mention the professor from the university of chicago. he says that the number one cause of terrorism is injecting your troops into another country. thus putting troops into saudi arabia might have had something to do with 9/11. is he right? is that the prime cause of terrorism? >> i know his work very well. he has been a participant in our discussions from the very beginning. he published a paper for several years ago. in fairness to other key to work, we have focused on this concern to win back to the late 1990's. the goal of the placement of u.s. troops on foreign soil and

to the extent it can in gender terrorism. the simple fact that the evidence is almost incontrovertible that the presence of foreign troops on soil, especially of foreign troops that are perceived to be of a different culture, religion, outlook, is particularly conducive to generating support for terrorism, including transnational terrorism. not just terrorism directed at the troops themselves but directed at the country from where those troops come. i do think that he is right. it gets interesting. it gets interesting when you consider the way that people who have not lived under foreign occupation themselves do sympathize with their brethren in some odd sense of the term. that is how you can have british citizens, born in the u.k., but whose parents came from pakistan, for example, perceived some kind of oppression by a second order effect. that is for the interesting work is being done, i think.

take those initial insights and apply them to this second and third generation tide of terrorism we are seeing. other questions? that puts us back on time. thank you, very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>>, if you will all take a seat will begin a program. thank you. to resume, our next speaker is the founder and director for the cato center which has become and the important pores over the debate over constitutional philosophy. he is an adjunct professor at georgetown. he has been here almost from the very beginning. he is a stalwart member of the staff. his intellectual leader. he has done more of this country to help advance the understanding of the

constitution and the stricter live government in a free society. he held by senior posts in the reagan administration including the state justice. in 1989, they presented him with the benjamin franklin award with the writing on the constitution. in 2001, he is awarded the alumni metal distinction. he debate in law schools across the country and testified frequently in front of congress. one of the most impressive things he has done is to help free issue the united states constitution. there was an introductory essay that he has done. it is very important in helping to frame and understand the

declaration of independence said that has relevance. he holds in ma and ph.d. from the george washington school of law. she will talk to us about whether the constitution matters anymore. it is hopefully more than someone leg down the road. >> thank you very much. i want to welcome me here to this program. you have heard that year has gone to hell and american is going to hell and the terrorists are out there. does the constitution matter any longer? no. there is one more piece of dour state of affairs. i will end on a high note.

the question if the constitution matters has been brought to the floor the process that has culminated in obama care. when we see the congress of the night did states telling states said they must set up the exchanges, then it seems that there is nothing that congress could not do. they are hard pressed to find if there is anything that they cannot regulate or redistributed. this is the state of affairs that we have come from. that is coming from a document that was written largely by a man who wrote that the power of the new government would be defined. no one in this room believes the government's power are few

and defined. how do we get from that? i see a lot of faces that recognize in the audience who ever heard me discuss this many times and probably can get the talks themselves. i'm going to try to put a a somewhat different spin on it. i'm going to talk about the declaration of independence and the vision that it has and show how that is captured by the constitution, how these bare bones vision of the declaration frames our whole approach to government in this country. and then show how it is that during the progressive and new deal era we fundamentally change that. i want to give you a conception of how the libertarian and conservative approaches these issues, which is very different from the way the modern liberal approaches it. you have a conception of how these two go together or do not

go to get there. you did that the declaration and you see that in this famous phrases that we hold this to be self evident that there are two parts. there is the moral vision and then there is the political/legal vision. it is important to recognize the difference. what you got this jefferson who attended that standing in the state of nature. he is trying to say how you can justify government of powers by starting with the state of affairs without government in order to avoid begging the question. he starts to the simple premise, all men are created equal. he defines that with reference to our rights not virtues or values or other more on notions but right. the idea that each of us has a right to pursue happiness by his own values as he works his way through life.

t is a starting plapoint with individuals. the next question is, we do not live in a world in which it is just individuals. we get to the second great question, how did they come together? each of this has a right to his life, liberty, and to pursue happiness. that is all reducible now come to the second step, contract. those a year to basic rights. t through. wo rights, we can create the whole of civilization or civil society even before we have

talked about government. what we are getting clear is the moral qualms. each of this has a right to plan and its life and be free. now we have got the question, how are we going to secure this? when ms. to the second stage. that is where oftentimes libertarians have difficulty. they have no a difficulty setting forth the moral order. when you get into the issue of how you secure the moral order, that is when all the compromises have to come up. governments are instituted among men. the idea is that twice limited government is limited by the end to secure the rights and the means that must be consented to. there are compromises that have to be established. you can think of a continuum.

down here is energy, now ou government. along the continuing, he could have various combinations. if that is all a matter of consent, it turns out to have some problems justifying it. we have the majority saying we want this much government and minority saying no. you have the problem of the tyranny of the majority. you want to think of it along this continuum. they thought about it in 1787 when they drafted the constitution. madison started the same way. we the people do ordain a constitution. another words, they start without government in this theoretical state of affairs. then he the get the body of the constitution and to see how much government they gave us. you see they started by saying

all legislative power shall be vested in a congress by implication. how you look at article one section 8 in you will see that congress was given 18 hours. that is all. they wanted limited government. when they got to the 10th amendment, then made a very explicit. the power is not delegated to the united states. reserve to the state. the constitution established it to be limited powers. if there is no power in the constitution, the government does not have a right to engage in that activity. it cannot be more simply stated in this. if you want to limit power, i do not give it in the first place with the power is legitimate only if it has been given by the people as recognized in the document itself.

the bill of rights is added two years later to make it clear that these are some of the things that government cannot do as it goes about exercising its very powers. it can embrace the freedom of the press, religion. it has to respect your right to be free from various intrusion'' of privacy and so on and so forth. it cannot take your property without just compensation. we lived under the limited government for 150 years. it was not perfect. there was waverly -- there was slavery. it took a civil war and amendments that finally applied the bill of rights against the states. now you had the completion of the constitution. what happened? the progressive era. at the end of the 19th century, where there was a fundamental shift in the climate of ideas,

but like you heard george talking about woodrow wilson. this was the elite of the north east coming from the elite universities who were fundamentally rethinking government. it is no longer to be a necessary evil. it was to be an interest meant the instrument to solve all problems. -- it was to be an instrument to solve all problems. the only problem was the constitution. in the early decades, the court for the most part found that much of what was being proposed by the progresses was unconstitutional. there were inroads being made. things came to a head during the new deal. especially during the election in 1936. the missiles threaten to pack the courts with 16 new members.

the court began literally turning the constitution on its head in 1937, it got rid of these powers. in 1938, it gave us to levels of judicial review.

.

have you also spoken about freedom of the press? >> we did indeed. we had a discussion yesterday afternoon on free expression. we talked about that issue in its broadest terms. including restrictions on the press, on bloggers, on internet. that's the broad subject that we were discussing, and there really are real differences there, but we had a food and a detailed discussion of all those things. >> there's concern among many chinese and their families at

home, and many of them are going to go on several detainees, and their families live underground. many chinese who live here like citizens, they like to visit back home. >> we discussed, again, in the context, i don't want to get into every detail of what we discussed, but we certainly raised our concerns both about restrictions on religious freedom in those places and broader human rights concerns and will continue to do that, yeah. >> what about human rights violation, any different from the previous version? >> you know, this is the first time that i've been -- i've had this dialogue, and the last time was in 2008. the last one before that was in 2002, and i think one of things i'm very eager to do is make this, as i said, a more regular exchange, because i think it will make our -- it will

enhance our ability to have these discussions in a way that's going to get a greater result. >> but the chinese response to these human rights violations? >> no, look, what i am pleased about is that we had a good two days of discussions, respectful in tone, and at the same time direct in content. and so there are issues, a range of issues, where we can work together, but a number of issues, including some that you're mentioning here, where we have differences. so the differences were very clear, they were very plainly expressed. there are a number of places where i can assure you, in two days, we're not going to change major policies or major points of view, but we laid a foundation to continue those discussions, and we will continue. >> talked about internet freedom, especially google issue. >> we spoke in broad terms about the issue of internet

freedom. we didn't speak about particular companies or details of that nature. the secretary's speech in january articulated a u.s. government policy which promotes an unfettered, open internet across the globe. we view that as a human rights issue. it's a reaffirmation of our commitment to free expression and our desire in china and everywhere is for there to be -- people have the ability to use the internet both to gather information and to disseminate information. clearly those are issues where we have a range of concerns. >> there's been some criticism that perhaps this is coming out of the strategic dialogue, this is going to be sort of a side issue and i thank you very much and move on and wouldn't really go anywhere. do you feel confident that

these discussions you've had in the past two days have actually achieved something either in the short term or long term can be deliverable? >> i view this as laying a foundation for me and director general continue to have conversations. so we can exchange ideas and concerns and look for ways to cooperate, all of those things. i also think it's critically important that the human rights issues be part -- and i think a part -- of a broader u.s. engagement in policy in china. it's significant to me we had representatives from the commerce department and from the white house and from the i.r.s., trade rep and the labor department and the justice department. it's also important to me that i'll be going to beijing next week to be part of the u.s.

delegation to the dialogue there, and i'll continue to discuss these issues. you know, we talk about a whole government approach. we need to take a whole government approach to human rights generally, and in this case, in particular. i'm confident we're moving in that direction. today did we resolve that issue? no, put we have a lot of work to do, but i know i have the commitment of the secretary and president to make human rights part of our ongoing dialogue with the chinese. >> did it raise its own plants or concerns about u.s. practices around the globe ar at home? >> again, this goes back to emboss door huntsman's comments. part of a mature relationship is do you have an open discussion where you not only raise the other guy's problems, but you raise your own, and you have a discussion about it.

we had experts from the u.s. side yesterday, for example, talking about treatment of muslim americans in an immigration context. we had consumption of racial discrimination. we had a back and forth about each of our societies with dealing with those sorts of questions. so throughout the day yesterday and again today, we had a discussion about the relationship of food safety, law, human rights today food safety is an issue, as our experts told thus afternoon, a big issue in the united states, and it's an issue in china. in some cases, we're talking about the same thing. we had a discussion yesterday about labor inspections. well, it turns out that there aren't labor inspectors in factories, either in china or the united states. maybe that's something we can work on together. so i think the tone of the discussions was very much not -- we've got all the answers, we're telling china -- it was

framed in an international context, interpret standards. we're both obligated. scompl&let's talk about things where we're both trying to help each other, and where we have differences, how do we mitigate those differences. >> i'm not going get into the details. we've expressed in the past our concern about the nature of the dissension and we certainly continue to be concerned about that fact. >> the recently passed arizona immigration law come up, and if so, did they bring it up or did you bring it up? >> we brought it up early and often. it was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society, and it's

an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination, of potential discrimination, and these are issues being debated in our own society. >> did they discuss anything about their concerns about chinese in arizona, any concerns raised? >> was the damee llama raised? >> we raised -- there were a range of issues raised about -- in the context of our discussions of religious freedom, the ability to practice freely and without constraint.

>> again, a number of cases or some of the lawyer cases involved, lawyers who have been either disbarred or are their licenses not renewed, the man who's in prison or detained because addition in part, these are people who represented. so in the context of due process, rights of criminal defendants, we raised those issues. >> did you learn anything specifically about the status of this case? >> again, i'm not going to get into the details of any of those. >> did you -- are there any specific bench marks or expectations that you set that you expect to be met in the coming months? >> well, i think as far as i'm concerned, the first bench mark

is that we get the legal dee dialogue underway. we did it in the next few months. we are eager to work also on the parallel discussions on labor issues and on religious issues. i think it's important we track some of these individual cases, but also some of the other more systemic concerns that we raised and will do so. again, somebody asked before about, you know, the criticism that we meet every couple of years and that's the place we discussed it. our intention, my intention is to make this a more regular -- a more normal kind of a conversation. and by going out there next week is an effort to meet with some officials and others to get a better picture of what's going on, and i want to be able -- as we do in every country in the world, to be able to raise our concerns, but also look for

cooperation. as i say, we had a range of discussions of prisoners. it's not going to go any farther than that. >> was there any talk about china's ex-pate ration of refugees to north korea? >> eric schwartz joined us at lunch. he and i both raised a number of issues involving north korea and cambodia and burma, and i think, again, this is another area where a more discussion about refugee protection issues could be very useful, and we're

certainly following those cases . >> did you get a decision whether this talk will be regularized as you expected? >> yeah, i think i'm encouraged by that. again, the director general invited me back to beijing to be part of a dialogue next year , which i gladly accepted. i think that's the right direction. i'd like to make it -- i think it ought to be at least on an annual basis. but we're going to take it one step at a time. we're now committed to doing it in 2011. i think that's a good thing. but it shouldn't be two days of talks every year, and that's why i think the more we kind of filter these out into different expert agendas or areas where we're having ongoing discussions about law reform,

about labor, about whatever, i think we're more likely to make real progress over time. >> if you mean specific case -- including prisoners -- >> again, my goal in coming into this meeting was to set up a process by which we will have more regular communication, we will find areas where we can agree to meet on a regular basis with experts to talk about a deeper substantive set of issues, and at the same time, to regularize these discussions through the

dialogue where specific cases are raised. but to raise specific cases throughout the year, we will continue to do that. i would have been surprised if we had a resolution of something in a two-day talk. >> it was your first round, and there's been a long gap, but what surprised you the most about the chinese posture, stance, attitude? i was encouraged by the degree to which we had a back and forth dialogue. you know, i come out of the n.g.o. world, and i spent a lot of time in frustrating meetings where it feels that everything is scripted, and i'm always, like, let's get to the real issues. we were talking about the real things.

we really had a discussion about both issues where we can agree and where we can move forward in a cooperative way, but we also had a real dialogue, a constructive dialogue, respectful in tone, but very direct about things where we don't agree. that's earn couraging to me. this morning, when we went to see sandra day oh nonor at the supreme court, she spoke very movingly about the important role lawyers play in this society, in the criminal justice surgery the importance we attach to the independence of the judiciary, the importance of pro bono representation. sitting in that august setting, you really get a sense -- i was really proud to be there, and i think that our chinese guest undoubtedly got a sense from that that this is pretty deeply imbued in our society. so things like that were both

-- it was interesting and encouraging to me that we were able to have discussions like that that i think took it to another level. >> sandra day o'connor, the former justice? >> yeah, yeah. a resolution about? >> about china's human rights record. >> i don't know if there's any plan to do that. we had a discussion about the periodic review, which the chinese government undertook last year, which we're undertaking this year. we talked about some yares where, again, areas where we have differences, but also areas where we have some similarities or some shared interest. traditionally the human rights council has been thrust an uphill battle on these issues, but we'll continue to press,

and i think it's good that we're able in this context to talk with them both about places where we can cooperate, as well as places where we're going to have different points of view. we'll take one or two more. >> the dialogue is not open enough? so do you expect something to be come in the future or in this direction? >> you know, again, i come out of the human rights world, and i used to be one of those people saying that, so i don't know what to say here. the truth is there is a value in having a conversation, direct conversation, between the two governments. there are a range of things that we said and discussed that need to be said, and we did say. and again, a respectful but direct way. i think that serves a prepare. i also believe, and to the

extent that we can encourage this, that there is a value in opening up the dialogue to involve civil society and, you know, academics and rights groups and environmentalists and whoever else, experts, legal experts. if we can succeed in establishing this more mature relationship, i think there's room for a more open process on some of the issues that we were discussing and to really have a more robust discussion with people who aren't just government representatives and a more open discussion. we didn't tell china anything. we really -- this was a discussion among two important countries. again, the idea here is how do we find ways to work together on areas where we have the potential to mutually benefit, and how do we find a way to address our differences and

mitigate those differences? we'll discuss very real concerns about very real issues. the tone of the discussion was very much we're two powerful, great countries, we have a range of issues that we are engaged with on, human rights is part of that discussion, and it's going to remain so, and we're going to continue to press on these things that we hold dear. >> when you're in beijing this week, are you planning to meet with any activists to hear the other side of the story? and secondly, sorry if i missed this, i came in a little late, could you talk a little more specifically about the legal cooperation they're looking to put forward on? >> sure. on the first question, whenever

i travel, and i do a lot, i make it my business to meet a range of people. on the legal dialogue, i think there are a range of issues in china now and we discussed them in some detail where law reform is being discussed, new laws are being proposed. there are a range of issues where implementation of existing laws is being discussed and basic contract law, for example, from 2008, and there are a range of challenges to how those laws get implemented. so i think there's an interest on their part and ours both to talk about laws that are being proposed or being debated, as well as the implementation. and a third area where inevitably there needs to be and will be discussion is the role of lawyers, the role of

the judiciary. so i think we can be -- we will be looking for ways to kind of integrate those three aspects. that happens, everybody. thanks, everybody. >> i think the germans call it fire. a german friend of mine once translated that as miller time. i'll take a couple of quick questions. i don't know that we need to extend the workweek much further. go ahead. you just had the assistant secretary. >> this month there has been demonstrations, anti-iran demonstrations in afghanistan, including kabul, in which people have accused iran of violating human rights. and today there was a big conversation about gun at the united nations also. is it an issue of concern about violation of human rights of

living in iran, a lot of them have been disputed, a number of them have been put behind bars. >> well, we have expressed a number of times our concern about rone's human rights record, not only concerns about what it is doing inside its own borders to its own people, but also how it is acting not constructively in other parts of the world, in that region or also in the middle east. so yes, we have tremendous concerns about iran and its human rights record. one of the reasons we worked, you know, very significantly behind the scenes and were gratified that iran was not granted a seat on the human rights commission. >> do you think any update? >> the secretary actually had a meeting this afternoon, and i

think we'll be announcing the schedule early next week prior to our departure. we're close to setting the trip up. we're not prepared to announce the schedule yet. >> what are your concerns about reports that al qaeda members have been able to travel more freely in and out of iran? >> we've long had concerns about al qaeda members, al qaeda leaders who have been residing in iran. iran is just another state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and this is just another indication. we have not reached a conclusion. i think we were satisfied with the meetings this week, and we will continue to work, you know, with the japanese government on a variety of levels on those issues.

>> can you give us more detail about it? >> i mean, as the secretary and the foreign minister said, it was a very detailed discussion. it started with about a 10-minute one-on-one discussion with the secretary, then joined by staff on both sides. we had a working lunch and went back and forth as they remarked in their remarks. pakistan was a significant topic. did get to pakistan. obviously, you know, the kingdom has its own very strong relationship with pakistan and traded some ideas on how we

could work cooperatively and also how the united kingdom could have its own dialogue with pakistan on issues of mutual concern, including security. this is one i just kind of missed. the secretary had a discussion with the foreign minister on tuesday. i just missed the read out of that call, so i apositively giles for not catching that earlier and passing it on. so she did have a conversation with him. that followed up with a conversation she had in new york at the opening of the conference earlier this month. and as the secretary said upstairs, we will look to see what happens this week. >> have you reached out there at any level on the same issue

on iran? >> not to my knowledge. iran did come up in the context of the discussion that we had this week with president karzai since obviously afghanistan is a neighbor of iran. we are touching, in a wide range of discussions with a wide range of countries and, you know, we'll be watching closely to meetings that occur in tehran this weekend, but as the second state, we are skeptical about whether iran is going to change course, and as she also said, we believe it is time to apply more pressure to iran and that we think is the best way to get them to engage more seriously. >> what about reports that ambassador mcchrystal is slated to retire this summer? >> he's working very hard in iraq, whenever there are

changes in ambassadors overseas, those are coming in. >> actually if you read the morning paper, pakistan has made some arrests n with this investigation, so i think that speaks for itself. >> before we wrap up, i do not want to overlook the fact that the secretary met today with president of the marshall islands, and gordon was in that

meeting and indicates that, you know, the primary topic of conversation was global warming, as you would expect. but, you know, we obviously welcome the friendship that the marshall island has with the united states going back many, many years. so the diversion didn't work, huh? i'll defer to justice. >> you had the assist aren't secretary here go, and you had questions. >> i have many miles to ready to before the weekend comes. >> there's concern in this country about the groups and also at the same time talking about human rights with china, also different neighboring countries like guatemala and

north korea and iran and china has connections with those countries. >> sure, absolutely. as mike posner was talking about, this was about china, this was about issues in the region that also affect china. this is shared by other countries in the region that have export economies, and over time, you can have both. you can have economic growth. you can have rising labor standards. it is in everyone's interest to move in that direction. so yes, these are the kind of issues with a wide range of countries. we'll wrap it up.

i haven't got a readout of that meeting, so we'll take that question and see if we can get some sort of readout. obviously we are cooperating fully in the investigation. i would probably expect that it did come up in the discussion today and we will continue to support this until it reaches a conclusion. >> it's also related to an incident. secretary clinton is visiting korea. >> we have announced her travel yet. >> her trip to korea is related

to some of the extra additional findings of the china incident. >> i wouldn't link the two directly together. the investigation is ongoing in south korea. i think it's in the final stages, and we will be talking to south korea about that investigation and its implications. they met with the tweps officials for preparatory discussions of importance bilateral issues related to our alliance. that doesn't tell you much. in the full range of discussions, i'm confident that, you know, various issues related to north korea came up. i'm sure the investigation came

up. i'm confident that they also talked about ongoing plans in terms of our ongoing defense cooperation and changes that we're discussing about the nature of the alliance. i'm sure that was probably the primary nature of the discussion. as for the secretary, when she's in the region, obviously we focus on our strong alliances. we'll have more to say about her trip early next week, but as to, -- well, let's leave it there. >> what about your measure accepts of how things are down on the ground right now? >> we are deeply concerned about the situation on the ground in thailand. we continue to strongly encourage everyone engaged to

show restraint and to find a way to work peacefully through these differences and do so in a way that strengthens democratic institutions. i anticipate that our embassy will remain closed through the weekend and probably monday as well. i'm not aware of any injuries. have a nice weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the space shuttle atlantis launched from kennedy space center in florida today for its final mission. the crew of the atlantis will spend 12 days in orbit and deliver a russian-built research module and other cargo to the international space station. more than 40,000 guests witnessed this launch,

including defense secretary roberts gates and astronaut buzz aldrin. >> atlantis, close and lock and initiate. >> o.t.c., that is in lock. >> t minus two minutes and counting.

>> activating cameras on the rocket boosters. >> one minute, 30 seconds. the water system is now armed. >> one minute. >> hand off to atlantis' on-flight computers.

15 seconds from now. flight data recorders are activated. t minus 31 seconds. a handoff has occurred. a rocket booster check. firing chain is armed. system activated. t minus 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. and zero, and liftoff of space shuttle atlantis. you should be impressed at this historic achievement in space. >> roger rolling.

houston is now controlling. it's complete. it's in a collision on course for a 51.6 degree, 136 by 136 -mile orbit. the main three engines on atlantis have been throttled down to 72% as the orbiter prepares to pass through the area of maximum dynamic pressure on the vehicle in the lower atmosphere. the engines now begin to throttle back up. >> atlantis, you are go and throttled up.

all three engines looking really good, back at full throttle. at liftoff, the fully fueled shuttle and boosters and external tank weighed 4.5 million pounds. it now has burned half of that weight off in propel he want. all three auxiliary power units that provide power in good shape, are the fuel cells providing electricity to all of the systems on board. atlantis is already 19 miles in altitude, 20 miles traveling 2,500 miles per hour. coming up on staging the point at which the boosters separates from the orbiter.

on board guidance system of settling out the zpergs. >> this mission is scheduled to end which shuttle at land ticks returns to earth on may 26. nasa plans only two more space shuttle missions, discovery and endeavour. they'll each launch for the last time later this year. >> this morning on c-span, sarah palin talks to a meeting of the susan b. anthony list in washington. secretary of state clinton meets with britain's new foreign minister. president obama comes on the b.p. oil spill in the gulf of mexico. that's followed by today's "washington journal." >> on this morning's "washington journal," we'll discuss the gulf oil spill with "houston chronicle" reporter jennifer dlouhy, nile gardiner,

and arizona representative kyrsten sinema discusses the new immigration enforcement law. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> former alaska governor sarah palin was in washington yesterday to talk to the susan b. anthony list, a group that supports anti-abortion women political candidates. governor palin is introduced by the susan b. anthony list's general chairman. this is 45 minutes. that beauti? thank you. just beautiful. well, good morning. i'm jane abraham.

i'm general chairman of the susan b. anthony list and i chair our candidates' selection committee. so good to see so many old friends and so many new friends this morning. i want to thank you for your commitment to this noblest of causes, protecting the sanctity of life. here in washington, we have a lot of issues that come and go. some come around every year during the budget fights. some come around when a crisis occurs. some come around because the press needs to fill their news cycles but fighting to proct the unborn isn't one of those issues. we don't just fight for life on mondays. or every march, or when the cameras are on, or when we have a little extra time on our hands. ours is a 24/7 mission and it is the cause we will fight for every day, every hour, every minute until every baby in our

great country comes to term and enjoys god's blessings of life without the threat that some abortionist will terminate that life prior to birth. [ applause ] and that's what we're here for. and that mission is one we will all embrace until it's accomplished. well, the susan b. anthony list exists to help elect pro-life officials to office. we ses erbilly spry to support pro-life women because there simply aren't enough in federal office that are pro-life. we strongly believe that our cause is strengthened when a pro-life woman stands up against barbara boxer or nancy pelosi or emily's list and goes toe to toe with them on this issue and thank you, micle bachmann and all our other pro-life elected

officials for your advocacy of our cause. when we began, there weren't many, but we had hopes and dreams. the dream to ad more pro-life women to the house, a dream we accomplished. the dream to elect a pro-life woman to the senate, a dream we accomplished with the election of elizabeth dole, and this year we're going to go a lot further. we're going to elect a pro-life woman from colorado to the u.s. senate. [ applause ] we're going to elect a pro-life woman from nevada to replace harry reid. [ applause ] and, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to elect a pro-life woman from california to replace barbara boxer. and we have another dream.

one that seemed a lit unrealistic that one day we'd see a pro-life woman running on a national ticket for president or vice president of the united states, and thanks to our guest speaker today that far-fetched dream became a reality in 2008. [ applause ] when sarah palin was nominated for vice president, we were overwhelmewith excitement from our members. within weeks, we had 77,000 new recruits who joined our team sarah project to work to help elect senator mccain and governor palin. most importantly, we had a champion on the national stage whose passion for and commitment to our cause of life gave incredible momentum to this cause. what makes governor palin so important to the cause of life and to so many other issues is her character and courage. the mainstream media and the

left have taken their best shots month after month to bring her down. no attack was too cheap. no topic too personal, no family member too young or vulnerable to be spared. had any of these assaults been leveled against the average politician, they would have ckled. some would have begun trimming and hedging and compromising their positions, but not sarah palin. others especially those on the left would have cried foul and had the entire mainstream media demanding apologies calling for resignations threatening sponsors of cable news networks or whatever else it it took to stop the onslaught. but not sarah palin. sarah palin is not the typical politician. she is a woman of courage and character. she took all their attacks and never chaed her views on an issue. instead, she stood up to her adversaries d said, bring it

on. governor sarah palin more than any single figure on the national stage today has proven what toughness and conviction is all about. toughness and conviction is not pushing through an unpopular health care bill that will fund abortions with all the money to interest groups and national press corps on on your side. toughness and conviction is not spending our grandchildren's legacy to bankroll favored industries and friends with government handouts in the name of economic growth. toughness and conviction is not launching round after round of talks and negotiations when adversaries are building nuclear arsenals designed to threaten america's security. toughness and conviction is withstanding the unrelenting attacks of the mainstream media, the left wing interest groups, the late night comics, the democrat establishment and the president of the united states and holding one's ground.

continuing to fight for one's principles and not backing down one inch. and that is what sarah palin has done in the battle for life and the battle to protect the economic andational security of the united states of america. [ applause ] and that's why so many americans love sarah palin. and we in the pro-life community especially admire sarah palin. we d so because of her unequivocal commitment to pro-life policies. we do so because of her willingness to help pro-life causes across america, and we do so because she has shown in her own experience that every human life is beautiful and special and deserving of the protection that we are fighting to provide. over the next few years the future of the pro-life movement will be deeply shaped by who wins and who loses some extremely critical elections. those campaigns will determine

who sits in the white house, who controls congress and most importantly who fills the swing votes on the supreme court. for us to prevail it is essential we have the support and manpower to wage the kind of aggressive campaign needed to overcome the advantages the pro-abortion side enjoys. and thanks to the help of sarah palin today, we will have more of those resources and support as we go forward. one final point, as many of you know my husband and i have been in the political arena for 30 years fighting for life and other issues of importance to us. we know more than most what it's like to be part of these battles and what it means to families and friendships and futures. and i just want to finish my inrowduction today by thanking governor palin and her family for being willing to do what they have done for these causes we care so much about. you have given all of us more courage to keep fighting.

you have set an incredible example for people like my twin 16-year-old daughters who need to see strong role models like you fight for what is right. and you have proven that in a profession that is all too often judged by who is up and who's done, not who's right and who's wrong ther remains a place for people of faith and fortitude to stand tall and lead america in the right direction. and we know you will keep leading these efforts as we enter this crucial point in america's experience. for all of this, i just want to offer my sincerest thanks to you, governor palin, thanks for what you've done. thank you for being here to help us today and thank you for what i know will be your unrelenting commitment to the struggle ahead. and now, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming our guest speaker, governor sarah palin. [ applause ]

>> thank you so much. thank you very much. thank you, sisters. thank you. it is great to be here and i appreciate that warm welcome. thank you. thank you. oh, thank you. god bless you. oh, i appreciate so much that warm welcome. thank you all. it is great to be here. good morning, sisters and i see some brothers out there too. glad you made it. first i'd like to thank jane and marjorie for their wonderful work and for their boldness, their courage, they're not backing down when they take heat. sometimes i know if my name is associated with something, you take a little bit of extra heat. i appreciate so much that you take it anyway and thank you,

emily, buchanan, for all of your hard work with this organization and marie, the most beautiful song, that was gorgeous. thank you so much for you talent shari that. and then the founders and the members of team sarah who are here, i can't tell you how much i appreciate you and i would ask that you would stand up so that i can put some faces out there to names and i thank you so much. [ applause ] thank you. woo, talk about courage and boldness, you all. thk you for the great work you did in '08 during the campaign and since then evenontinuing to support and advocate for good commonsense solutions and helping me get the message out there. i appreciate you so much. you know what i would always like to do when i'm in any kind of group is acknowledge those who allow us to be here free and secure, the members of our united states military. i know we have a lot of spouses

of military members and moms of military members and daughters too. those of you who are serving today in uniform or perhaps have served in the past, our veteran, you are who we want to thank and salute and i would ask that members of our military past or present would stand up. we will thank you, salute you and say god bless you. [ applause ] thank you. thank you. america's finest. our men and women in uniform who are a force for goo throughout the world and there is nothing topologize for that. god bless you, veterans. thank you. and we do have these good candidates. i though this they have been listed today, robin smith and pam bondi and jane norton and kel i aot. so happy you're here and putting it on the line.

i thank you for the courage you're showing in running for office. this afternoon, i'll be with nikki haley in south carolina doing an endorsement there and, of course, carly fiorina, it was, you know, the credibility there that sba allows a candidate to have knowing that, oh, okay, i'm safe, they're endorsing carly fiorina. you all have endorsed her. you all get it. you understand that they're in deep blue california. anyone who is running for office bold enough to declare their pro-life stance, they're pro-nra and pro-business and anti-big government principles that they stand on here she proudly proclaiming that yet some wanting too accuse her of being a rhino. no, no, no, they're in the deep blue california. if she's unabashedly pro-life and all those other commonsense conservative things she stands for, she's the real deal and i appreciate you too being bold

enough and strong enough to take a stand in that race and take a stand in so many races across the country. i'm especially glad to be celebrating life. it's an honor to speak in a building named after one of my heroes and one of your, ronald reagan. this is an honor. president reagan w always so supportive of women leadership in fact, he oen liked to tell a story about his good friend and another hero, margaret thatcher. he first met her before she became prime minister and it was a trip he took to england while governor of cale. reagan loved to tell a sry about that trip. appantly he was the guest at a reception hosted by members of the british conservative party. and reagan's own words, he said, lord, somebody or other come

over to him and asked, well, what do you think of our mrs. thatcher and reagan said, i think she'd make a magnificent prime minister and the british lord said, oh, my dear fellow, a woman prime minister? and reagan replied, well, you had a queen named victoria who did pretty well. and, of course, reagan was right about what a magnificent prime minier margaret thatcher was and i admire the fact that mrs. thatcher never set out to be a woman prime minister, just a prime minister and one of the greatest ever to have served perhaps because she was a woman of action. thatcheriked to say in politics, you wantomhing said, ask a man. you want somethingone, ask a woman. that was her quote. so, folks, in 2010 we'll remember this year because we're going to accomplish a lot together this year. this year will be remembered as a year when commonsense

consertive women get things done forur country. [ applause ] all across this country women are standing up and speaking out for commonsense solutions and many of them are grassroots activists leading like the tea party movement which i'm excited about because it's a beautiful movement. it's a movement of the people. ese women are getting involved because they want a better future for their kids. pore all of our kids and these policies coming out of d.c. right now, this fundamental transformation of arica that we were warned about in the campaign, well, a lot of women who are very concerned about their kids' future saying we don't like this fundamental tra transformation of america. this road we're on towards national insolvency. we being beholden to foreign countries in so many respects now. we being under the thumb of big

government with more of a disrespect for life, for the sapt hit of life. we don't like that transformation and to me it seems like it's kind of a mom awakening in the last year and a half where women are rising up and saying, no, we've had eugh already, we're going to turn this thing around. we're going to get our country back on the right track no matter what takes. we're putting all our efforts into the midterm elections to turn things around and put government back on our side, to respect the will of the people. not allowing government to make us work for it, but for our government to again work for us. the policies coming out of d.c. -- [ applause ] -- are allowing us to feel empowered really. allowing us to rise up together because momsind of just know when something is wrong. it's that mother's intuition thing i think. we can tell when things are off base, off course or not right and we're not afraid to roll up

our sleeves and get to work and get the job done, set things straight. poms can be counted on to fight for their children's future. now, again, part of that fight has to do with the grassroots movement that is full of tea party americans, those who are saying, no, enoughs enough. and what has amazed me about the tea party movement is how the media has reacted to the people who are involved in -- just want their voice heard and saying, no, government, you're overreaching. you need to abide by our constitution and you have limited powers, federal government, and we're going to kind of explain to you and remind you what the constitution is all about. that's what the tea party movement is all about. so they're the media and they crack me up because they embed themselves in the tea party rallies and they try to figure out just who are these creatures who are a part of this, these moms, these grandmas, these teens and college students, these doctors and daughtlawyers

such. both genders. people of all races being a part of this movement and, yet, the media has triedut i think they've failed because americans are smart enough to start holding the media accountable, but people there in the media trying to portray tea party americans asacists and violent and all those things that they are not, that we are not. just average every day hard-working patriotic liberty-loving americans who again have said, that's enough, federal government. that's enough of your overreach and we're going to do something about it. now, it's been clever too being a part of these tea party rallies, seeing some of the signs in the aurd jens and some ofour signs today too. you can learn a whole lot about what the sentiment is out there in the american public just by reading the signs and in some of these movements. i think one of my favorite was a mom carry agent sign saying "my kid is n