a connection. they just want to hijack a private event. >> hustler seems to have one sentence that is key to the whole decision. it as a subject in this about it. . .

party that state juries provide remedy under for its citizens. mr. insider has absolutely no remedy. none. either private figure, the grieving father and he's lost without any remedy whatsoever.

>> do we have -- meet all the terms for the statutes that meant to govern protest of funerals and yet there's in a war that damages from the -- >> i believe that the -- it had several tort claims but there's no criminal statute. it went the other way because of the public figure status but that would be an example. >> but that was an example where a federal case where the conduct was permitted by the statute, by the police there and yet there was a damaging award. >> i'm not aware of any case.

>> if-the-maryland legislature says these are the exclusive regulations that apply there so that if someone came up to mr. phelps at the funeral and spat in his face, that would not be -- that wouldn't be illegal. >> just alito, i don't know if the if that -- >> it was prohibited by the statute. >> it would be because of the distance. you would have to be closer than the statute allows to spit in

somebody's face. >> i believe that you could commit a tort and still be in compliance with the criminal code. >> can i ask -- suppose i don't think you have a caucus -- cause of action for invasion of privacy these people were at the distance from the funeral but that was one of the causes of the action submitted to the jury. if i disagree you on that cause of action, i suppose i would have to say there has to be a retrial. >> so you have to support both causes of action, intentional infliction of emotional distress and the invasion of privacy. >> yes, justice scalia but we agree that the responsibilities waived that issue. -- respondents waived that issue. >> we met the elements of the

tort. they contested the constitutional issue but not whether or not we met the elements of the tort. >> thank you, counsel. >> ms. phelps. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court when members of the west bro baptist church entered an ongoing extensive public discussion and why array of comprehensive activities taking place in direct connection with the deaths and funerals of soldiers killed from iraq and afghanistan, they did so with great circumspection and they did so with an awareness of the boundaries that have been set by the precedence of this court.

demonstrations outside the person's home, outside the person's workplace, outside the person's church, saying these kinds of things. you are a war criminal.

tartare >> i don't think that person should have a cause of action or would under your case would have a cause >> we did have a doctrine of fighting words and you acknowledged it. if somebody said, you know, things such as that to his face, that wouldn't be protected by the first amendment? >> we agreed that fighting words are less protected under the first amendment. >> unprotected? >> i'll go with unprotected, justice scalia and if i may add this. fighting words require imminence. they require proximity. and they require a lack of those words being part of a broader -- >> is that so? do we know that? >> i beg your pardon? >> do we know that? is it the criterion of the

fighting word's exception of to the first amendment that there be an actual fight? certainly not that. is it a requirement that there be a potential for a fight? i doubt it. where do you get the notion that it has to be an imminent fight? >> i get the notion from the series of cases starting within seven years after your case with the gooding case and on down through the brandenburg case. >> which say what? person is truly mote? the fight was not iminnocent? >> the working definition of fighting words is that they have to be words which by their nature are likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace and not occur in the context of some social or tisk educational, or political kind of speech. 2k5 these despondents were not

charged with fighting words. no element of the torts under which liability attached included fighting words. the words that were at issue in this case were people from a church delivering a religious viewpoint commenting not only on the broader issues that the discussion was underway in this nation about dying soldiers, about the more or less of the nation. >> there's no questions that the signs like that we saw during the vietnam war, but you had to demonstration at the capitol and you had the demonstration at annapolis. this is a case about exploiting a private family's grief and the question is why should the first amendment tolerate exploiting this bereaved family when you

have so many other for getting across the message the very same day you did? >> so several pieces to that, justice ginsburg, when i hear the language exploiting bereavement, i hear the principal of law that comes from this court and the principal of law as i understand it without regard to viewpoint, there are some limits on what public places you can go to to deliver words as part of a public debate. if you stay within those bounds and under these torts even, this notion of exploiting, it has no definition in a principal of law has to guide people and if i may -- >> it is your afert that the first amendment never allows a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress based on speech unless the

speech is proven to be false or roux? -- true? >> yes, and with a little bit more from your cases if i may and not under an inherently subjective standard and where your only -- you're only claiming that the impact of the speech was adverse emotional impact -- >> well, justice kagan gave me one example. let me give you another example along the same lines. let's say there is a grandmother who raised her son and who was killed in iraq and she goes to visit her grandson's grave and she's waiting to take a bus back to her home and while she's at the bus stop, someone approaches and speaks to her in most vile terms about her son. she he was killed by an i.e.d.'s. do you know what it does?

let me describe it for you. i am so happy that it happened. i only wish that i could have taken pictures of it. and on and on. now, is that protected by the first amendment? there's no false statement involved and it's purely speech. >> right. and it may give rise to some fighting words claimed depending on the proximity and the context and i would have to -- >> it's an elderly person. she's really probably not in a position to punch this person in the nose. >> she's a quaker too. >> [laughter] >> let us assume that the grandmother had not done what mr. snyder did in this case. from the moment after he learned of his son's death went to the public airways multiple times immediately before and immediately after -- >> what is your answer to

justice alito's question? do you think the first amendment would bar that action or not? >> there would have to be a narrow circumstance if it didn't. >> so you think the tort of emotional distress is allowed even for a matter of public debate? >> not public debate, mr. chief justice. that is not the way i understood the hypothetical. >> i understand the hypothetical that the person disagreed with the war in iraq in the end sending of american troops there. >> and knew that this elderly woman was the grandmother of a soldier and i would ask the question how they knew which is why i was making reference to what mr. snyder did. >> my person selects the grandmother because he thinks that will give maximum publicity to his views. does the first amendment bar that cause of action or not? >> if the grandmother entered the public discussion, the first amendment are.

>> no, the grandmother was returning from the grave of her grandson. he didn't answer the public discussion at all. i'm anxious to determine under those circumstances the first amendment louse that -- allows that cause of action or not. >> you gave the answer before you said stalking. isn't this capable to stalk something >> and that's what i was trying to liken it to. >> do you think it satisfies the normal tort or law against stalking for someone to come up to an individual and engage in a discussion? i thought a lot more was required. >> well, i would not file the claim for that elderly grandmother. i would not say more than there is no cause of action. there was absolutely much more than that -- >> well, if that's a possibility there's a claim there, then what distinguishes that in this

chase? i thought you were beginning to say that my hypothetical is different because mr. snyder made his son into a public figure and the question i wanted to ask in that connection is whether everybody bereaved family member who provides information to a local newspaper for an obituary will be -- there been makes the deceased person a public figure. >> not the deceased person, justice alito. we don't allege the young man dead is a public figure. >> but if the grandmother call up the paper and said let me tell you about my grandson who was just killed in iraq. he liked football and camping. that makes him -- makes her a public figure? >> it's getting closer. and if she went on to say and how many more parents like me and my ex-wife are going to have to suffer this way and when will this senseless war end?

and i've gotten congressman murtha on the phone and talked about this situation and then proceeded to repeat that question, then a little church where the servants of god are found say we have an answer to your question that you put in the public airwaves and their answer is you've got to stop sending, if you want this trauma -- >> your response to justice alito is a dwelling on the facts of this particular case. i'm interested from knowing what your position is on the broader question. can you imagine a circumstance when this same type of discussion is directed at an individual and yet would give rise to a tort of emotional distress? >> i can imagine. >> i'm sorry? can or cannot? >> i can imagine a circumstance a hypothetical where there was not this level of involvement and it was out of the blue and it was up close if i may use the

term -- >> ok. if you recognize that there can be a tort of emotional dis less circumstances like that, isn't that the factual question of whether it rises to that level of outrageousness which is part of a tort for the jury? >> i don't disagree with that because you've take an -- taken a subjective standard with the absence of any of these non-speech misbehaviors and now you are back to the only burrell between a person and their first amendment right include what this court has said outrageous statement -- >> i'm sorry. >> was just that standard and that subjective statement of emotional impact. this court has said repeatedly. >> does it make a difference which seems to be to be the case here that mr. snyder was selected not because of who he was but because it was a way to get maximum publicity for your

client's particular message. >> that is not accurate, mr. chief justice with due respect. >> assuming it was accurate, does it make a difference? >> the motive of a speaker to get maximum speaker which every public speaker pines for, looks for, strives for and is entitled to does not change the legal principal that's at play. >> for reason unconnected with the individual who is the subject of emotional distress. in other words, if a person is selected because as i indicated, he gets maximum publicity, rather than because of a particular connection to the matter of public debate, i wonder if that makes a difference. >> i think it makes a difference when you're looking at what role the plaintiff had in that public discussion and how tied the

words they seek to punish are if his role of public discussion. i think that's how you get to the point. >> let's say that we disagree with you as to whether mr. snyder had at all injected himself into this controversy. or let's take a case where it's clear that the father of the foreman soldier had not injected himself, had not bought any newspapers, had not said anything to anybody, but a group knew that this funeral was taking place and was there with the same signs, with the same -- are you saying that makes a difference? that there would be a claim? >> i'm saying that it does make a difference but no, there would not be a claim there in my opinion. >> so it's not a difference that matters? >> it is a difference that matters in some major, i believe, justice kagan. i believe that the umbrella of protection under the first amendment that this court has established firmly is speech on

public issues. sometimes you get under that umbrella because it's a public official or it's a public figure. but the umbrella that you give the protection for is speech on public issues. now when a plaintiff comes to your court and says i won $11 million from a little church because they came fort with some preaching i didn't like, i think it does make a difference for the church to look closely of what role did that man have. >> it is a matter of public concern, is that correct >> if it absolutely, justice alito. >> let me give you this example. suppose someone believes that african-americans are inferior. they're inherently inferior. and they're really a bad influence on this country. and so person comes up to an african-american and starts celebrating that person with --

berating that person with racial hatred. this is just any old person, any old african-american on the street. that's a matter of public concern? >> i think the issue of race is the matter of public concern. approaching an individual up close and in their grille to berate them gets you out of the zone of protection and we would never do that. >> that points out all of us have components to our identity. we're republicans, we're dem accurates. we're christians. we're single or married. we're old or young. any one of those things, you can turn into a public issue and follow a particular person around, making that person that the target of your comments and in your view because this gives you maximum publicity the more innocent, the more removed the person is, the greater the impact.

>> i think your public concern issue may not be a limiting factor in cases where there is an outrageous conduct and where there should be a tort. >> well, but again, this court has given substantial longstanding protection to speech on public issues and how could it be gain said that the dying soldiers is not on the lips of everyone in this country and it is a matter of great public interest and why they're dying and how god is dealing with this nation for you to consult the joint appendix to see at the very same funeral where people with flags and signs articulating the god bless america viewpoint -- >> your position is that you can take this and you can follow any citizen around at any point.

that was the thrust of the questions from justice kagan and justice alito. and seems to me that you should help us in finding some line. >> yes, i will help you, justice kennedy and i'm pleased to do that. because we don't do follow-around in this church. we were 1,000 feet away, out of sight, out of sound. not just standing where the police said to stand -- >> but the hypotheticals point out that there can be an intentional infliction of emotional distress action for certain harassing conduct. >> for harassing conduct, not for speech. not for public speech, justice kennedy. >> but torts and crimes are committed with words all the time. >> i agree can that and there's never been any allegation in this case that the words of the westburough baptist church were in any category of low value or less protected speech. >> let's talk about

subjectivity. surely, the fighting words is, you know, whether something's a fight word, that's a very subjective call, isn't it? >> i believe that your cases give some good light on that. >> you don't think it's subjective? >> there may be in some people's mind difficult. >> you think that's solid? what is an outrageous statement is very much different from what's a fighting word? i don't see the difference. besides which, isn't it the case that in order to recover for the tort of intentional infliction, you have to substantiate it which the plaintiff here had. and my goodness, for fighting words, you don't need that. you can say these words angered me to the degree that i would

have been inclined to fight at least for this tort, you have to have physical manifestation. why isn't that a subjective standard? >> because the court was subjective in the falwell case and the language that justice kagan brought forward identifies the way this case was tried, identifies why it's inherently subjective where although two signs and then three were identified as actionable by a strange reading of those words, all of the preachments of westburough baptist church including all of the signs of that picket went to a jury with that inherent -- >> so it depends on the proposition that what is outrageous is more subjective than what is fighting words? >> well, justice scalia, i must hasten to say this. i am not a fan of the fighting

words -- doctrine. >> the court has made that a very narrow category, hasn't it? it has not allowed the fighting words -- you say that to me and i'm immediately going to punch you in the nose because i -- it's an instinctive reaction. i think the court has rejected spreading fighting words beyond that. >> and especially where there's not just emotional injury. i think he had subjected in broad language, you have not gone that way in any of the cases and again, i have to reiterate you have required immediacy and intent. fighting it is fighting or not. i do understand that has not been pinned down as a requirement but intent, it's your purpose is to mix it up with somebody. not to go out and say nation, here is this little church. if you want them to start dying, stop sending, that's the only

purpose of this little church. a thousand feet away could not possibly be fighting words. >> so we're still worried about the statements on television and on the internet and the knowledge there. and i'm not -- i'm starting -- i'm trying to great the same answer from you i was trying from your colleague. branda said the right to be left alone is the most important. so he must be thinking there could be a tort for interference with privacy and the first amendment doesn't stop state tort laws in tort circumstances. and emotion injury is one. but i see that in some instances, it could be abused to prevent somebody from getting out a public message and therefore, i'm looking for a line. let me suggest a couple and see what you think. you could have a judge make the decision since the first

amendment is involved, not the jury. and the judge could say whether in this instance, it was reasonable for the defendant to think that it was important to interfere with the emotional life of that individual. you could say if that was so, there will be no punitive damages. there could be ordinary damages. you could remove all the protection from the defendant in an instance where the defendant nonetheless knew and actually knew that they were going to cause an individual who's private severe injury of emotional injury, irrespective of their public message. so what i'm doing is suggesting a number of thoughts of ways of trying to do what i'm trying to accomplish. to allow this tort to exist but not allow the existence of it to interfere with an important public message where that is a reasonable thing to do.

>> thank you, justice breyer, and i'm taking that we're speaking of the intrusion claim and i believe i could offer you a comparing contrast on two extremes. on the one hand, you have the body of law that has the beheading of the captive audience. you can read all those cases from which ugged conclude that it is very narrow, very limited and there must be some actual physical sound, sight intrusion if you're talking about invasion of privacy. at the other extreme for comparing and contrast is what they seek in this case, what the trial judge gave them in this case which is in an unspecified period of time that each individual will call their mourning period, no one any time, any place, any manner may say any word that that mourner

says caused me emotional distress. >> why aren't the members of the family of the deceased catholic audience. the funeral? >> if we were right outside the door like the other expressers were in these exhibits, they might have been. your body of law about captive audience when you peel the colorado shank, that -- taking the picketting where they specifically said said, footnote 25, this isn't about content. you got to be up in your grille, i think the term the court used was confrontational. now you can't be a captive audience with some -- to someone that you couldn't see -- >> i thought arguing a picketting of a person's house is not protected by the first amendment. >> it is directly in front of can be regulated and even in frisbee -- >> that's the difference between that and picketting around the site of a funeral?

>> proximity, justice alito. because the captive audience doctrine has fleshed out and those abortion picketting cases what you were looking at was is it practical for the person to avoid it without having to run a gauntlet? that's why you say image is observeable. the only objection you can have there is content. get up and close the blinds. >> so it doesn't have to do with whether this is what you characterize as a public funeral as opposed to a private funeral? that's not the distinction you're relying on any longer? >> no. i'm primarily relying on proximity. i do think you can have a public event where there was not an element of vulnerability and the people going in, you might even let them up in their grille. i don't know for sure. but we don't have to worry about that. >> i'm following your arguments and even at the bulk of your signs involve public speech. what you have not explain to me

is how your speech directed at the niders constituted public speech or speech about a public matter because you're talking about them raising matthew for the delve. -- devil. at what point and how do we take personal attacks and permit those as opposed to fully accept to speak about any political issue you want. what's the line between doing that and then personalizing it and creating hardship to an individual? >> i believe that the line is where it was in this case when the father used the occasion of the son's death to put a question out in the public airwaves repeatedly. >> so if we disagree that that made him a public figure, if we

view him as a private figure, is that enough to defeat your argument? >> no, justice sotomayor. >> assuming that the matthews are private figure and you did this. so explain to me how you're protected by the first amendment. >> if without regard to what label is put on a person who steps into the public discussion. >> you want to change my assumption. we assume that he's a private figure. you have now made a public statement and directed personal comments at an individual who is a private figure. is that actionable? >> well, i don't know, justice sotomayor. i don't know if i can give you a definitive answer as you frame of mind it. what i can tell you is that i think the court would have great difficulty making a rule of law that whether you call yourself private, public, limited, whatever, you, not the person

you're man of your word, but you made some public statements and then somebody wants to answer you. >> well, so what if -- did mr. snyder, the father, become a public figure simply because his son was killed in iraq? >> no, mr. chief justice. >> if he didn't take out the usual obituary notice in this case should come out the other way? >> he went far beyond that. >> let's just say he does nothing september except bury his son. he is not a public figure? >> if he does nothing, we do not picket him. >> but if it's not publicized, you don't get the maximum publicity your client is looking for. but if he simply buries his son, is he a public figure opened to this protest or not? >> i don't know in the context of a war if i can give a

definitive answer to that. it was not an issue of seeking maximum publicity. it was an issue of using an existing public platform to bring a viewpoint that was not being articulated for two years, this church -- >> called by the local newspaper and asked for comment and he or she says i'm proud of my son because he died in the service of our country. does that stepping into a public debate by doing that? however you call it, justice alito. church or anybody has the right to answer that public comment. that is our possession. >> that is, ms. phelps. mr. summers, you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> >> could i ask you to go back to an answer that you gave to one of my completion when you were last up there. you said that a more standard anti-war demonstration get out

of iraq, war is immoral at this funeral, same distance, same signs, but more standard anti-war demonstration would be protected by the first amendment from an intentional infliction of emotional distress suit. and i'm wondering why that is. if you think that what is -- what causes the lack of protection here is the kind of -- on to a private funeral, the exploitation of a private person's grief, the appearance for no other reason than to gain publicity at a private event, if the that's the problem, why doesn't it also apply to a standard, you know, get out of iraq war is wrong kind of demonstration? >> that is a closer call and i would look to see if the funeral itself was disrupted. but the fact of our case is that

it was disrupted and it was personally targeted assaults on the mr. -- >> suppose it's not disrupted and i know that you can test these facts that yours wasn't disrupted, that they stopped when you started, that they were a sufficient number of feet away from the funeral and so forth. so we're just talking the fact that there are people who are appropriating and taking advantage of a private funeral in order to express their views and they are in compliance with all the content neutral rules. >> i would say that's a much closer call and not the -- >> but why is it a closer call? >> it's a closer call because it's not the personal targeted nature of the attack on the snyder family that we have in this case. >> so does that mean that now we have to start reading each sign and saying the war is wrong it

falls on one side of the line but you're a war criminal, falls on the other side of the line? is that what we have to to? >> i think that generally speaking, yes, justice kagan. the district court would have to look at the signs at the district court in this case and determine which one he believes were direct at the family and which ones were not. there is a comment earlier that all the signs were presented -- well, all the signs were presented by the respondents, not by mr. snyder. so we -- >> i guess that that kind of a call is office necessary under the tort that you're relying upon. the conduct has to be outrageous, right? >> correct. >> that's always required. it's that kind of call unless the target is unconstitutional as applied to all harm inflicted by words. >> correct, justice scalia. the element of element and emotional distress requires

outrageousness. >> i was assuming a situation which a jury found that the war is wrong that a jury did find that outrageous and the question was were we beginning to to reverse that jury verdict because the person then meant prohibited. >> i believe that's a closer call. i would say yes. it does not target the family or does not disrupt the funeral, it is a closer call and it is more like le the constitution is going prevent that claim from going forward. >> thank you, mr. summers. the case is submitted.

this weekend and through september, listen to landmark cases on espn radio. >> what we are arguing is you may not publicly desecrate a flag regardless of the motivation for your action. >> flag burning and freedom of speech. "texas v. johnson" today at 6:00 p.m. eastern. -- the court has started is new term. and you can more about the highist court with espn's latest book. revealing unique incites about the court available in hard cover wherever you buy books and also as an e book. >> now president obama on the monthly jobs report for september.

the government says the unemployment rate held steady at 9.6% with a net loss of 95,000 jobs, mostly due to government layoffs. the private sector added 64,000 jobs. the president spoke at a family-owned brick and masonry brick factory in washington. >> i just had a chance to take a quick tour, a look around brandon quinn, president and c.e.o. of earnest mayor and it's a remarkable story. brendon came here initially to help a family business. turn it around. it was experiencing losses. he ended up purchasing the company and now has grown it enormously. has terrific employees here. he provides full health

insurance to them. they are supporting their families. and even during this difficult downturn, he habit had to lay anybody off and is still confident about its growth. we're just very proud of him and what this company has accomplished. these are the guys that built serious stuff, concrete blocks, bricks for walls that thick, difficult to move and can stop anything in their path. sort of like the way i feel about congress sometimes. but this is a family business that's been here over 80 years. they believe in investing in their workers. they care about the environment. so they collect and process using cooking oil from local restaurants to power some of their equipment. their community care is -- business is growing. brandon has hired folks with this and with the smart investment he's made, he hopes

to continue this growth. the smart business like this one are the bricks and blocks of our entire economy. and over the past two years, my administration has been doing everything we can to help encourage more success stories like this. because it is small businesses that willpower our growth and put our people back to work. this morning, we learned that in the month of september, our economy gained 64,000 jobs in the private sector. in july and august, private sector jobs numbers were revived upwards. we've seen nine straight months of private sector job growth. in all, more than 850,000 private sector jobs gained this year, which is in sharp contrast to the almost 800,000 jobs that we were losing when i first took office. but that news is tempered by a net job loss in september which was fueled in large measure by the end of temporary census jobs

and bylawed -- by layoffs in state and local governments. these continuing layoffs by state and local governments of teachers and police officers and firefighters and the like would have been even worse without the federal help that we provided the states over the last several months. help that the republicans in congress have consistently opposed. the republican position doesn't make much sense especially seasons the weakness in public sector employment is a drag on the private sector as well. so we need to continue to explore ways that we can help states and government to maintain workers who provide vital services. at the same time, we have to keep doing everything we can to accelerate this recovery. yes, the trend line in private sector job growth is moving in the right direction but i'm not interested in trends or figures as much as i am interested from

the people behind them. the millions of honest hard-working americans swept up in the most devastating recession of our lifetimes. as i've said before, the only piece of economic news that folks still looking for work want to hear is you're hired. and everything we do is dedicated to make that happen. last week for example, i signed from the law the small business jobs act. a small business bill that does big things and i want to mention three of them today. first, within the 11 days since it took effect, more than 2,000 small business owners have already received more than $1 billion worth of new loans. with more to come. and beginning today then small business administration is offering larger loans for folks who need them. second, it expands the tax cut for all the equipment investments small businesses make this year, something that brandon is planning to take advantage of here at and we were

just talking about his belief that the more we can accelerate depreciation, the more likely we're going to see businesses like his make these investments. it's going to help small business owners upgrade their plants and equipment and encourage large corporations to start putting their profit backs in the economy and accelerate $55 billion per tax cuts over the next year. third, it creates a new initiative to strengthen state programs that spur private sector lending to small businesses. a step that will support $15 billion in new small business loans across the country. maryland, for example, be able to support $250 million in new lending for businesses that are expanding and creating jobs in communities like this one. thousand of small business owners across america had been waiting for months for this bill to pass. for the loans and tax cuts they

badly need it to free throw their businesses and hire new employees. unfortunately, it was held up all summer by a partisan minority until a few senators put politics aside. just imagine the difference it could have made for small businesses in our economy had it happened months before. putting the person people back to work, expanding opportunity, rebuilding the economic security of the middle class is the moral and national challenge of our time. it is too important to fall prey to pure partisanship or blind ideology. this bill's rampant results prove that when we work together, we can get a lot done and that's what the great debate we're having today is all about. i believe that instead of extending tax loopholes and encouraging investments, in overseas jobs, we should extend the credit for all the research and innovation they to right

here in america. i believe that instead of borrowing another $700 billion we don't have to give tax cuts to the wealthest 2% of americans we don't need them. we should extend the tax cuts for middle class families. they're the folks who saw their wages and income flat lined over the past decades and they're the one who is deserve a break. and instead of sitting still, i believe we should invest in building america's roads and railways and runways. too many american workers have been out of work for months, even years. and that doesn't do anybody any good when there's so much of america to rebuilt. our infrastructure is falling far behind what the rest of the world is doing and upgrading it is vital to our economy and our future competitiveness. this is a project worthy of america's efforts. it is something that engineers, economists, governors and mayors of every political stripe support and many of themmed a

sobering report and on monday, i will be meeting with some of them at the white house to discuss how we can put americans to work doing what we do best, building america. as i've said many times before, it took us a long time to get out of where we are right now and the damage left by this recession is so deep that it's going to take a long time to get out. it will take determination, picture assistance, and most importantly, the will to act. all elements that the american people have in abundance. and if we summon that spirit now, if we keep moving forward, i'm absolutely convinced that we will rebuild our economy. we will put our people back to work and we'll come through these tough days to brighter and better days ahead and i want to thank brandon not only for his hospitality here today but somebody who's got the encourage and -- courage and the foresight

and the skills to create a terrific business that is supporting so many families. thank you very much. thanks again. thank you, george. i know you. >> [laughter] >> my oldest son. >> you know him well. >> it's great to see you. >> how long have you been working? >> 14 years. >> great. thank you very much. thank you, guys. keep up the good work. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you again. >> thank you, mr. president. >> i appreciate it. we get this infrastructure going -- [inaudible]

>> john boehner also spoke on jobs and the economy from his addict are drit of west chester, ohio. he comments on the latest jobs report for the month of september and says that the midterm elections are a referendum on the democratic party's handling of the economy. here's a five-minute portion of his remarks.

>> now let me be crystal career, if it isn't clear already that this speech is about jobs. why? because the american people are still asking the question where where the jobs and this coming election is about one issue -- jobs. it's about jobs that were promised to the american people by the current administration but never delivered. it's about the jobs our economy should be creating right now but isn't creating because of the policies that are coming out of washington. it's about the jobs our children deserve in the future that may never have because washington is burying them under a legacy of debt. this morning, we got the latest national jobs report from the department of labor. it looks a lot like the reports we've seen every month since president obama signed the stimulus spending bill into law. unemployment is high. millions of americans are out of work. private sector job creation

remains flat. that's what you got your $787 billion worth of spending. high unemployment a bigger government and an economy struggling to create jobs. the upcoming election is a referendum. as americans, we have to decide. do we want another two years of job killing policies coming out of washington? or have we had enough? [applause] and i'm a small businessman at heart and always will be. running a small business here in westchester was one of the proudest times of my life. and it gave me a perspective on our country that i've carried with me throughout my time of public service. a family owned operation like my

dad's barn, like the business that i ran or here with mark's business. that's what powers the american economy. they ploy a quarter of the country and create a majority of new jobs over the last decade. small businesses like these are torblee the american dream and right now, that dream is under siege. i ran for congress back in 1990 because of what i saw happening to small businesses in america. i got tired of watching washington. a federal government was getting too big, too intrusive and too expensive and politician who is have no understanding of the private sector talked about the importance of creating jobs and then forced policies on american small businesses that made their job of creating jobs even harder. elected officials with no understanding of how our economy works spent money are reckless

abandon and telling us we could pay for it all by raising our taxes. it was clear they believe the prosperity of america was government itself. the thinking went like this. if you want more jobs, then spend more money. collect more taxes. redistribute those taxes from the federal level. and make government bigger. now if you've been paying any attention at all to the obama administration, it's thinking like this that may sound familiar because it certainly isn't new. in fact, there's nothing new about it. and anyone who's ever created a private sector job in america can tell you that it's just dead wrong. the truth of the matter is this. our economy is built on freedom. and you don't get the prosperity by taking freedom away from the people who create jobs. you achieve prosperity by getting government out of their way. [applause]

>> the greatest threat to job creation in our country is the flawed idea that we can tax, spen, and borrow our way to prosperity. the halls of power in our government right now are filled with people stubbornly devoted to the tired old idea that government can create prosperity by spending and borrowing. and for the past four years, they've been running congress. and for the past 20 months, they've controlled our entire government from the white house to capitol hill. 500 miles away from here in washington, the spending binge is going on to threaten our prosperity and small business, the engine of job creation in america are gripped by uncertainty. under president obama, and speaker pelosi, washington has

been throwing everything at them but the kitchen sink. first, it was the stimulus that shipped jobs overseas to china instead of creating jobs here at home. a few months later, they came to threat of a new national energy tax that they called cap and trade. then there was obama care where there's unconstitutional mandates and job killing taxitis and paperwork requirements. and our president obama was supporting the team of taxing but the other team says will raise taxes on 50% of all small business income. that means hundreds of thousand of private sector companies face the prospect of a job killing tax site on january 1. this company right here could be one of them. ladies and gentlemen, this is not what americans asked for when they sent then senator obama to be our president in the oval office and the pink slips shouldn't be going to workers in

ohio. they should be going to president obama's economic team. [applause] .