we think all of you for sharing this special occasion with us. stewart udall was a man for all seasons. he died on the first day of spring. we celebrated his life on the first day of summer in santa fe, new mexico. today, we recognize his contribution to his country in anticipation of the first day of fall. and, dad, in forward to the first day of winter -- i do not know what we're going to do and to top this. [laughter] i will assign to the grandchildren the first day of winter. we would like to think, from what we just heard, the praise, the speeches, that stewart udall had no flaws, but ask the family. [laughter]

he was one stubborn old coot. and, actually, that stubbornness might explain why he got so many things done as the speakers have talked about today. just one memory of mine -- i can remember back when dad was practicing law -- this was post- cabinet -- representing uranium miners and down-winders who died from their exposure to radiation. people thought it was a hopeless case. believe me, many people told him that he should move on to other things. it ended up being a 30-year-plus battle, but he never gave up. the cases went all the way up to the supreme court. the court said these cases cried out for redress. after it was done in the courts,

he recruited ted kennedy and orrin hatch and persuaded congress to give justice to the people that deserve it -- the navajo miners and the down- winders. of all the things my father accomplished that you heard it talked about today by historians and others and family members, i believe he felt his best years were his eight years at interior. thank you, interior department, for that, for being very special in his life. [laughter] [applause] again, on behalf of the family, i want to thank secretary salazar and his team for acknowledge in my father's contribution -- for acknowledg

ing my father's contribution and the new mexico delegation for initiating the legislation signed by president obama to have the building named for father. and i want to thank my colleagues in the house and the senate for their support and their friendship. now, two other things that i just want to say -- ken did not talk about this, but the portrait that you're going to see when you walk up here -- that portrait was by allen houser, a native artist. it took him about 10 years to finally do it because he had moved from portrait painting over to sculpture. that is the painting that resides in the hallway as you

enter the secretary of interior is office. it is the official portrait. it looks very native american, rebecca. there are a lot of folks that seen native tendencies in my father's face and that is reflected in the portrait. one final thing, you'll notice on the back of your program -- i do not think anybody has said anything about it -- but there is a very special poem, which my father and jackie kennedy shared. i hope that you get a chance to read it later today or at some point in the future. it is one that he really loved. now, i hope you're going to join us in singing "this land is your land." that is what we are concluding with. who is leading us here? come on and let's get it going.

[applause] [applause] jonah and lori udall leading us in "this land is your land." >> he specifically requested this song be played at his service, which we did in santa fe and will do again here. >> we would like everyone to sing along, please. >> ♪ this land is your land this land is my land from california to the new york islands from the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters

this land was made for you and me as i went walking that ribbon of highway i saw above me that and less by way -- that endless sky way i saw below me the valley this land was made for you and me this land is your land this land is my land from california to the new york island from the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters this land was made for you and me i roamed and rambled ♪ and all around me

[unintelligible] this plan was made for you and me -- this land was made for you and me this land is your land this land is my land from california to the new york islands from the redwood forests to the gulf stream waters this land was made for you and me when the sun came shining and i was strolling and the wheat fields waving and the colouds -- clouds rolling a voice was chanting as the fog was lifting this land was made for you and me this land is your land this land is my land

from california to the new york islands from the redwood forests to the gulf stream waters this land was made for you and me this land was made for you and me this land was made for you and me ♪ [applause] >> this concludes our program to celebrate the life and legacy of the secretary of the interior, stewart udall. on behalf of ken salazar, thank you for attending this historic

event and. -- event. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tomorrow on "washington journal," a preview of the 112 congress with glenn thrush and lisa mascaro. then a discussion on social security, retirement, and pension programs with andrew biggs. later, a look at the latest report by the working poor bang families project with the manager of the organization, brandon roberts. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. tomorrow on c-span, all six of the declared candidates for the republican national committee chairmanship will debate for the first time. the list includes current chairman michael steele, the moderator includes -- moderator's include rubber

norquist -- grover norquist. watch live coverage tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> calm in a time of anger and leadership in a time of uncertainty. that is what the nation asks of the united states senate. that is what this office demands of e to serve here. and a search for farewell speeches and hear from retiring -- >> search for farewell speeches and hear from retiring senators. there are more than 160,000 hours all online, all free. it is washington, your way. >> several journalists and scholars talk about the 2008 attack in mumbai, india. this is part of a terrorism conference organized by a pakistani organization and the jamestown foundation produces about one hour, 10 minutes. -- and the jamestown foundation.

this is about one hour, 10 minutes. >> thank you very much. i hope everyone has the beverage of their choice. we are going to talk about lashkar-i-taiba. i know that l.e.t. already came up this morning. that was a nice segue. my name is stephen tankel. i'm going to moderate and i am going to give the first portion of the talk. i am joined by arif jamal and sebastian rotella. did i get that right? i am going to do their introductions before we bring them up to speak. just briefly, i will try to provide in about 15 minutes a very broad overview of l.e.t. then i am going to bring arif up to speak about their ideology, training, and recruitment. sebastian will speak about the evolving threat to the west, in particular their activities

training and planning terrorist attacks against the west during this decade. briefly, about me -- i am at the carnegie endowment for international peace. i am finishing up my ph.d. in war studies. lashkar-i-taiba was one of my case studies on which i gather it a bit too much information for my own good and so have been working on a book about the group. as we heard this morning, pakistan has yet to move significantly against l.e.t. it is fair to say the u.s. has had a lot more success getting pakistan to move against most other militant outfits in its midst than against lashkar. one of those reasons was pointed out by a general and it is fair, that l.e.t. as an organization is not attacking the pakistani state, making it one of the

few groups not to do so. there is fear that it will be drawn further into the insurgency raging in the country. what was omitted was the fact that lashkar still provides a valuable resource for elements in the army and the isi to be used against india. although that is no longer the sole enemy against which the group is fighting. i want to provide a broad overview. i think, in terms of situating the group within a wider rubric, it is important to look at it in two ways and understand the dualities that define l.e.t. it is a missionary and a militant organization. it is committed to reform in pakistan, drawn people to the faith -- a drawing people to the faith, and it is also a military organization. for much of its history, it has ascribed to jihad wage a broad

deliberate muslim lands that are under occupation -- abroad to liberate muslim lands that are under occupation. as prioritized the fight in the kashmir -- it has prioritize the fight in kashmir. let's go back to its berth briefly. it was going in 1986. it was formed in afghanistan when hafiz muhammad saeed, whom many people will know as the head of the organization and, another organization merged.

it had very minimal impact during the afghan she had -- afghan jihad. its militants are found in tajikistan and also in kashmir as early as 1990. i am going to let arif speak more about their ideology. it is considered to be the most legitimate front for several reasons. first, kashmir is closest to lashkar. the ratio of security forces to population is one of the highest. lashkar sees it as one of the most -- worst occupations.

l.e.t. sees kashmir as part of a wider struggle against hindu india that goes back to the time of the prophet mohammed. they began receiving state support in the early to mid- 1990's for their jihad in kashmir. they are not the only group being supported by the isi. they enjoy a very small support structure in pakistan. l.e.t. is alienated from the wider movement. l.e.t. could be a more convenient and controllable proxy because it does not have the same allies within the country as to the other jihadist which describes -- jihadist group which applied to qaeda.e facith as the al lashkar-i-taiba grew into the

most robust militant outfit fighting in the indian- administered kashmir in the 1990's. the first public sign of this is the attack against the red force at the end of the decade by several lashkar militants, but it had been working toward that d roughly 1992, 1993. this is before it began receiving robust support from the isi. it was building transnational networks. it has strong ties to saudi arabia and the gulf. several of its leaders received education in saudi arabia. it continues to build on these ties as well as the presence of the pakistani diaspora in the gulf to build up its networks

there. it is also building up its networks in europe, particularly the u.k., where there is a large british, pakistani diaspora at this point. towards the end of the decade, it is also beginning to train people from the u.s. as well, a very small number, which i believe sebastian will speak about. up until 9/11, all is well and good. the army and the eye as i -- and the isi are supporting l.e.t., is primarily focused on liberating kashmir. the 9/11 attacks queer the pitch, followed soon after by the attacks of another militant group on the indian parliament in the end of december, 2001. a lot of groups are banned in pakistan. l.e.t. is one of them. they are a banned organization

in pakistan. the above ground, social welfare organization, which has been used for missionary work and has a host of schools and hospitals , is dissolved. it is dissolved at isi direction. this was done according to members in order to help protect lashkar's assets. l.e.t. is banned, but it has a legitimate, above ground operation under which it can operate in pakistan. support for l.e.t. does not cease. after 911 -- 9/11, people will be familiar with the turn the double game.

pakistan and the regime began dividing militant outfits into what many have called the good jihadists and the bad jihadists. l.e.t. there is the best, seen as the most reliable proxy, the smallest threat to the state. l.e.t. largely shows itself to be deserving of that assessment because it does not share the same fate as the taliban, unlike most of the other jihadist groups in pakistan. l.e.t. is not as angry by the mission are of -- by the musharaf decision. l.e.t. continues to prioritize india. it is fair to say that one of the reasons why the pakistani

government sided with the u.s. was in the hopes that, by doing so, it would be able to wall off the kashmir jihad from the wider u.s.-led war on terror. during the early part of the decade, l.e.t. is not launching attacks for the most part in pakistan, continuing to focus primarily on the past year he had, terrorism in india is also beginning -- on the cost near -- on the kashmir jihad. terrorism in india is also beginning. it continues to build up its social welfare structure. it is fair to say it puts more emphasis on to its social apparatus that have the 1990's. one reason is that it is taking a long-term approach to further in simulate it into pakistani society. a second reason is that the

[unintelligible] jud escapes sanction. one of the reasons it did is that they agreed to it here to the regime's agenda in return for being able to "keep its supply lines open" through jama -ud-dawa. for the most part, it does it here to the government's agenda. just as pakistan's double game has proved unsustainable, lashkar's attempts to play a double game as well have proved to be somewhat unsustainable. the global jihadist is impossible to ignore. it becomes involved in

providing logistical support, facilitation, training to a host of different militant actors during the early part of this decade -- al qaeda included. also becomes involved in at least -- also becomes involved in a least one if not two terrorist attacks against the west. i believe sebastian is going to go into details on that. it is able to sort of pull off this dual approach for the first several years. several events within pakistan strategickar's environment or difficult. the first is that the pakistanis day begins trying to restrict the jihad in kashmir significantly -- the pakistani state begins trying to restrict the jihad in kashmir significantly. second is the attacks in 2005 in london resulting in the

enormous international pressure against the regime to do more to crack down on militancy within its borders, in particular on groups like l.e.t. one way of showing result is to crack down even further on activities in kashmir. by 2006, that conflict, that jihad is a shell of what it once had been. it was seriously constricted. at the same time, the insurgency in afghanistan is escalating and the front is becoming in possible for lashkar to ignore. it opens up our presence there. it was seen as leading the kashmir jihad. now it is a much smaller player. members are quite often fighting under the banner of other organizations to provide plausible deniability for itself and for the army and the isi.

greater presence in afghanistan as necessitates -- in afghanistan necessitates a greater presence in the tribal areas. l.e.t. is one of the biggest players there. it for integration between lashkar and the -- we get more integration between lashkar and other outfits fighting in afghanistan at the time. a lot of these militant outfits and individuals were with the pakistani state. it accelerates the process. you get l.e.t. increasingly integrated with a host of groups that are viewed as more extreme and more committed to jihad than is the core l.e.t., which remains in close relationship

with the army and the isi -- isi. the leadership is perceived to be more conservative sen -- than some of these other actors. you're getting an increasing amount of rationalization -- factionalization then the group. lahskar -- lashkar has never been a geologically exposed to expanding beyond kashmir. it is forced to move faster than it might want to in order to keep pace. why is this important? mumbai comes out of this process. as we see from the interrogation of david headley, the pakistani- american who did the majority of the reconnaissance, or for all we know, but entirety of the reconnaissance -- what i want to know about him is that we have

an operation that starts as 1- two people attacking -- one to two people attacking the taj mahal hotel and then is the in the country. it then grew to a 10-person, multi-terrorism spectacular that is launched, including targets where you are guaranteed to be able to kill westerners and jews. very appealing to those who are motivated by the al-qaeda at etiology -- al qaeda ideologies. they felt the need to show major results. it is not splintering into a million people -- pieces. there is factionalism asian -- factionalization. there were no major consequences for lashkar after the mumbai attack. it has not been banned.

as been restricted in accordance with u.n. sanctions. -- it has been restricted in accordance with u.n. sanctions, but the degree to which they are enforced varies. l.e.t. still runs training camps in the areas of afghanistan better under government control. it is expanding its presence in the tribal areas and expanding -- increasing its integration with the other actors there. the result that we get from this is a jihad that has expanded well beyond just the parameters of kashmir or even india, even though india remains the primary enemy for lashkar's leadership. we have a threat that comes both from an organization that is expanding and that feels pressure to keep pace with the evolving jihad nexus in pakistan, while we also have threats from individuals and factions within the organization to, because of this

increasing organizational integration, are able to move beyond the leadership sanctions if they want to. what i want to leave you with is the idea of a threat from an organization as well as from elements within it. with that, i would like to turn it over to arif jamal, who is going to speak more about the ideology, the training that has made lashkar such a capable organization, and the type of people who have joined the group. just a little bit of background on arif -- in addition to being a journalist in pakistan since -- who has worked there since 1986, and has written more than two rendered 50 investigative and analytical articles -- 200 investigative and analytical articles, he is also the author

of "shadow war: the untold story of jihad in kashmir." it is an excellent book which i highly recommend to everybody here. arif has been based in the u.s. for the last several years, where he has worked with the counter-terrorism center and with new york university's center and international cooperation. in addition, airff -- arif is an incredible scholar on l.e.t. he was incredibly helpful to me on my research. he has forgotten more about l.e.t. than i could hope to know. much of my understanding about the group comes from conversations with arif when he gave so generously of his time to me. it is a great pleasure to invite him to speak about lahskar to you today. [applause]

>> thank you, stephen, for the excellent introduction. i have never had such a good introduction before. i am going to focus on the internal dynamics of the lashkar-i-taiba. i think a lof -- lot of people know about the international agenda. after mumbai, lashkar is being talked about a lot in the western media. sebastian is probably the best person to talk about the mumbai attacks and how lashkar is planning its global tea had -- global jihad.

i am focusing on the theological philosophy of the lashkar and their recruitment methodology and their training, different sorts of training. as stephen talked about, the birth of jamat-ud-dawa and lashkar-i-taiba has been clearly talked about. jamat-ud-dawa as a dozen or so departments and lashkar-i-taiba is only one of them. it has become more known than some others. jamaat-ud-dawa was known as the center of guidance and call for

islam. basically, it is a missionary group and jihadist is only part of the mission -- jihad is only part of the mission. the biggest point on its agenda. before the jiihad -- jihad, there were not many people in pakistan who enjoyed the official patronage. the number of [unintelligible] were only a few num -- hundred. when the afghan jihad started, years.t first seven

there were only a few l.e.t.'s in the area who waged jihad. they -- hafiz joined in 1985. the head of lashkar-i-taiba had joined the jihad. they were looking for a known person to lead the group in afghanistan. -- were notot many 0 many. hafiz saeed was a professor. they chose him to head the small group.

in the afghanistan -- in afghanistan, amazingly, when you read the in house propaganda and publications, you do not find that these people are fighting the soviets. they are fighting their fellow moslems -- muslims. they are destroying the shrines, the mystic shrines, instead of fihgting -- fighting the soviets. when the afghan jihad was coming to an end, the group took a more formal form and their philosophy was to convert

pakistani's into [unintelligible] that is why they call that markaz-ud dawa-wal-irshad. a lot of people in the west talk about jihad as a peaceful struggle, but i do not really agree with that concept. as i understand, jihad has always been an armed struggle to establish an islamic state. jihad is a very easy word to use in the english and western languages. it has become more well known. if you read the jihadist propaganda, they do not use the word jihad only. they use the words to hide and

-- words jihad and a world -- word that means "killing." it is not jihad. -- not just jihad. in the beginning of the kashmiri jihad, they discovered that hadiz says there will be a time when muslims will reach a jihad against india and the prophet of islam would himself come down and fight amongst themselves, but they will not know that. fighting against india, destroy india, to demolish india -- it is the jihad the prophet of

islam talk about -- talked about. there is another word referring the prophetght by of islam. jihadists in pakistan mostly use this word instead of jihad. the idea is that the prophet of islam is among them and fighting the hindus but they cannot see him. so, it is a very biased job for them. recruitment -- in the beginning, the markaz-ud dawa-wal-irshad had a tough time.

they were not receiving the official saudi patronage. hafiz saeed and his group wanted to have one single group which should be headed by one person. they refused to wage jihad. they could not do anything that was not permitted by the saudis. for your so, they had a lot of discussion and finally -- for a year or so, they have a lot of discussion and finally decided to have their own group. the madrassahs by markaz-ud dawa-wal-irshad and hadiz barred the group of markaz-ud dawa-wal- irshad from the madrassahs, so

they ad to look for their recruits elsewhere. a few years ago, i encountered several hundred of their members. my conclusion was that 96 persons recruited from -- 96% of pearson's recruited to lashkar- i-taiba -- a person's recruited to lashkar-i-taiba -- of persons recruited to lashkar-i-taiba were dropouts. other groups have a high percentage of madrassah trainees.

they were all sent out into society to recruit the boys in their villages and their neighborhoods. they would not recruit somebody who was not known to somebody in the group. before 9/11, they used to have big gatherings, annual conventions where they would invite the families of those recruits. in 1979 convention, the event that i wrote the first article on l.e.t., the number of people who attended the annual convention was close to 400,000, including -- in the three-day convention. the list showed that 400,000

people had entered the convention. they issued passes to everybody and they kept a record of that. but many people left the convention and came back. i would say that it was somewhere close to 200,000, the total, but not all were members. they were the family, the extended family. when those people came there, many joined the lashkar. many of them, at least, allowed their children to join it. after 9/11, there was only one

or two conventions because of the security situation in pakistan. they abandoned it. they still recruit people through their own people. every lashkar member is a recuirter. -- recruiter. this is the primary job of every member. jamaat-ud-dawa had set up two training camps in afghanistan which were taken over by taliban when they came into power. they set up four camps in pakistan, three in kashmir and one in punjab. they call these training

cqamps -- camps something closer to a -- [unintelligible] . you do not get militant training only when you are a member of jamaat-ud-dawa. it is a whole lifestyle you have to adopt. when to get up, went to sleep, what to eat, what not to eat, how to dress -- it is a lifestyle for them. in the beginning, when you become a member of jamaat-ud- dawa or lashkar-i-taiba, whatever you call it, you undergo a 21-day training and that is mostly islamic training. why you should follow the

faith. most of the recruits come from their families and convert to the faith. the faith, in simple words, is the believe -- belief that muslims should only follow the car ran -- koran and the hadiz. they refuse the four schools of theology. all members of lashkar-i-taiba have to go through the first 21 days of training. when they are selected to wage jihad in kasmir, they undergo a special training for three

months to six months. training.y intensive for example, one part of that training is that you have to live in a jungle for 72 hours. in that part, there is nothing to eat. you have to survive on grass and leaves. you are allowed to come back to the kitchens of lashkar-i-taiba, attack them, and snatch food. that is part of the training. unless you succeed in that, you aren't allowed to go and wage jihad.

throughout the training, the knowledgei is on your of islam. most people describe jihadists as killers. i do not describe them as killers. the primary motive of jihadists is to become martyrs. it is another thing that, before becoming a murder -- martyr, they kill people as collateral damage -- the difference between the other group and the lashkar about this is that they

carry out suicide attacks because they carry the explosives and they are bound to die in those attacks. lashkar people have not carried out those suicide attacks. all of the l attacks ofash -- all of the attacks that lashkar has carried out, there was always the chance of them surviving. like in the mumbai attack, there was one survivor. there is the chance of dying, but they still attempt to make every effort during those operations to survive. i want to talk about the possible cooperation between

jamaat-ud-dawa and al qaeda. a lot of people -- i have read -- think that there is some sort of organizational link between al-qaeda and the jamaat-ud-dawa. yes, they do -- did grow up in afghanistan together. abdulla asam was a source of inspiration for hafiz saeed. they worked in very different conditions in afghanistan. somi do not see them as collaborating, rather as rivals.

i think jamaat-ud-dawa would like to take the whole pie rather than share it with anyone like osama bin laden. they have a lot of respect, but i still do not see them collaborating in pakistan or internationally. i think my time is up. maybe there are some questions which i will answer. >> thank you. [applause] >> i would like to bring up sebastian rotella, currently in investigated journalist at propublica, an independent news organization that does investigative projects for major news media. before that, he was at the los angeles times go" for over 20 years-- "los angeles times" for

20 years. he has served as a foreign correspondent. his book about the u.s.-mexico border was named a u.s. -- new york times notable book of 2008. many of you will have read his recent articles about david headley or perhaps his work at propublica. he knows an enormous amount about lashkar's western operations, in particular their involvement in those recent attacks. it is a pleasure to have him here to speak about that today. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. as was mentioned, during a month-long period, i rode a series of articles about lashkar-i-taiba, the mumbai attacks, and the rise of the threat of lashkar to the west.

i will talk about the series and what i found and what i think it means. first, i will summarize the findings of the articles for those who might not ever read them. the series centered on david headley, the confessed american tourist who did reconnaissance, and a mysterious lashkar chief who was allegedly the project manager of the mumbai attacks which killed 166 people, including six americans. the stories concluded that the u.s. intelligence committee was slow to focus lashkar as a threat in the past decade. increasinglashkar's determination district the west and the impunity with which they operated in pakistan. headley became their prized scout. reporting uncovered something which had been a secret. u.s. law enforcement had looked into half a dozen warnings about his extremist activities while he trained with lashkar and scud targets around the world

between 2001 and -- scouted targets around the world between 2001 and 2009. it revealed deficiencies in the system for tracking threats and a failure to lashkar as a priority. it also raised questions about his role as a u.s. informant in pakistan. the director of national intelligence undertook a review of his contact with the u.s. government after the articles. after his arrest, the u.s. investigation was very aggressive and helped produced troubling evidence of the suspected role in -- of the pakistani government. there was a suspect isi officer remained at large. trial of suspects in pakistan has stalled. this grim panorama intensify doubts about the ability of pakistan to crack down on powerful extremist groups, even when they intentionally kill americans.

it illustrates the challenges of u.s. policy. u.s. officials said they could not push too hard for justice in the mumbai case because of the potential damage to the fight against al-qaeda and its allies. yet, lashkar seems increasingly as dangerous and professional as al-qaeda. to give you some background on talking to this project -- i was a foreign correspondent for many years. i covered many of the major attacks in the past decade by al-qaeda promise of denver 11, madrid, london. i found myself covering lashkar in many different cases indirectly. a person pays -- i participated in the coverage of mumbai and the headley case. it broke from a narrative i had found myself reading -- writing in recent years. there were foiled plots, bumbling recruits, poor tradecraft, and al-qaeda leadership weekend -- weakened

by a lack of funds. lashkar had the impression that it was on the rise, professional, paramilitary, with plenty of money, bass political popularity -- vast political popularity and close ties to security forces. it had pulled off one of the most spectacular and sophisticated terrorist attacks since 9/11. when i moved earlier this year to propublica, i got the opportunity to give the topic the attention it deserved. we do in-depth stories that tried to go past the headlines and look at issues of abuse of power, accountability in the public interest. i thought this product fit the bill. there were questions about the role of the pakistani government. there were questions about u.s. policy. there were questions about what the west had done about the lashkar threat.

here is a terrorist group that got away with mass murder. i am sure most of you have seen the hbo documentary about mumbai. it was one of the most impressive documents about terrorism that i have ever seen. what struck me was the real time conversations between the handlers in pakistan and the gunmen and even the victims in mumbai. who are the -- what are the names and faces behind those voices? where are they? is it possible that people do not know who or where they are? for all those reasons, i thought it was a propublica story. i needed to write this differently than someone writing academically. the articles had to be accessible to people who did not know much of lashkar-i-taiba. i focused on david coleman headley. that was was easy. he was american. he had pleaded guilty. he was a lurid character, one of

the most interesting ones i have come across in recent years. he was an islamic militant and fears pakistani nationalist, but he had also been a globetrotting, hard partying businessman who had a knack for acquiring wives and girlfriends and then entering them to the point -- angering them to the point where they reported him to the police. he was a pakistani-american at home in many worlds who knew people in high and low worlds. he was more interesting and more dangerous than many western militants we have seen in past cases. the open their rare and extraordinary went to -- he opened a rare and extraordinary window into militant society. especially, regarding his contact with the u.s.-pakistani government and how much

investigators have known about him. the other central figure was not one of the top men or even the number two or three, but he was an up-and-coming jr. chief, a skilled case officer and director of overseas operations. he had popped up in a number of cases, including one in france. sources told me that he was the dominant voice in those intercepted phone conversations in mumbai, talking to the gunman and even to the victims. he had been david headley's handler. i thought his trajectory could help raise the threat against the west, there evolution, and their ability to act with impunity. he was able to act very mysteriously. facts about him remained unclear. there was debate about his military affiliation. most of the top u.s. and european anti-terrorist

officials i talked to thought he had been or was a high-ranking officer in the military or the isi in pakistan, but several frontline investigators disagreed, as did stephen, whose opinion i respect. it was hard to find knowledgeable people who were willing to talk. it seemed like everyone had reasons not to talk about mumbai because of the pending court cases and the enormous diplomatic sensitivity. hardly anyone wanted to talk about david coleman hadley. -- headley. nonetheless i had several dozen conversations with a number of officials from the u.s., brazil, -- israel, and that number of other countries. i looked at hundreds of case records, some of which had not been released. there's a lot of material to follow up on and expand upon.

he had. in court cases -- he appeared in court cases dating back to 2001, sometimes as an unnamed conspirators. . you need multiple confirmations to ensure it was the same person. he was a youthful leader of the international wayne of lashkar. .. threat to india. in late 2001 and 2002 there was a vital role. the case showed the doubled game earlier. one anecdote that came out earlier, after the 9/11 attacks the cia to contrast in the camps -- took interest in the

lashkar. americans, australians, french, arabs, all interested at the time. but the pakistani security forces alerted the military trainers in those camps ahead of time. before each of the inspections the trainees were simply evacuated from the camps in hidden in the mountains. their return was when the camps had finished their searches. there was also a recurring pattern in which various chiefs were grooming and talent spotting trainees for these operations. weapons procurement, target surveillance, and testimony about surveillance of a chemical plant in maryland. fund raising and logistics' in europe and the year -- and the u.s.. as well as a bomb plot.

the aborted plot in australia left little doubt about the determination to strike earlier in the decade and investigators feel that he must of had approval from higher up to undertake an attack at that time. also remarkable about that case was that france issued an arrest warrant for him in 2006 and he was convicted in absentia in 2007 but nothing was done on the pakistani side. theoretically he could have been behind bars rather than serving as a project manager. project manager and not mastermind because of the stories that one has to simplify, he was just one of the allegedly have of a dozen mastermind in the attack. he did play a central role because of his international experience, his skill as a

gambler, and his experience with hadley. he had an unusual profile, older, a businessman with a u.s. passport. training extensively in the camps. testimony also shows that he trains separately with isi in classic intelligence training. evidence indicated the pakistani intelligence held to direct, train, and fund the reconnaissance. they were in contact with each other. there were clearly aware of the plodding in a support role, providing advice on technical issues. he was kept appraised of target selection. in mumbai he went out of his way to select five targets where there was a sure thing that

western targets would be killed. about halfway into the five or six months of reporting, when i came across information that seemed to be a big deal in an actual secret, 2005, three years before the attacks there had been an fbi inquiry. his ex-wife in new york had warned investigators and he had been arrested in a domestic dispute. raising fundamental questions about the official version, narrowing the focus into u.s. counter-terrorism apparatus. ultimately reporting showed that federal investigators had interviewed his wife three times in 2005 and she had detailed the involvement, that he had boasted that he was still an informant when he went to trade. yet the investigators decided that he was not a threat and he

kept traveling. the exact nature of his work as an informant became clear but the renovation was important. raising the specter of him as a double agent. anti-terror officials were convinced that they monitor intermittently through 2008, playing a role in the increasingly urgent and specific warnings from the u.s. to the indians. that has not been proven by any means. what was exactly known and when remains a mystery. but the review that was launched after the first couple of articles showed a more troubling time line in that there were half of a dozen warnings from some houses and associates over seven years. i have done this for a long time and i know a lot of investigators and intelligence officials around a world.

i appreciate the difficulty of their work and have easy and superficial it can be for a journalist to second-guess after the fact. the landscape of terrorism, in each case there was information about each of those people that was involved ahead of time. i do think that as time went on the morning's accumulated and became more serious. it appears there was a breakdown in the system. soon afterwards we published the two-part series. i already described the essential findings, so i will simply highlight the main points. the u.s. government was slow to focus on lashkar and its threat to the west. a complex issue. there were voices of concern, there were investigations that

raised warning signs, but the overall consensus amongst investigators and experts that i talked to was that there was not enough effort before 2008. the striking example of that was experienced by the investigators that brushed to mumbai after the attack. agents that had a problem, they found that there was a basic lack of intelligence that she would have expected counter terrorist communities to have collected on a major group seven years after september 11. leading to a second central issue, the role of the pakistani security forces and the isi. stories have tried to be very prudent, reflecting the spectrum of the debate. at one extreme you have pakistani officials continuing to insist that there was simply no official link whatsoever.

in the middle the most common u.s. assessment is that mid- level officials were likely involve or aware of the plot, but there was no high level institutional decision. at the other end of the spectrum, many indian investigators feel that there was extensive official involvement. i will be circumspect in saying that the lack of progress in the case two years later worsens suspicions and deepens the mystery. in the trial in pakistan right now there are basically two important figures in the prosecution seems to have stalled hopelessly. in contrast there is stronger evidence against half a dozen masterminds that remain at large, including suspected officers. in some cases there are faces, addresses, phone number is known to the authorities thought to be

in pakistan doing business as usual but authorities said they were not able to catch them. the investigations and accounts, much work has been done to corroborate the account of hadley, painting a picture of a close relationship between isi and lashkar, including funding, training, technical assistance and advice from many sources. it would be legitimate to ask whether involvement was limited to one or two grove officials. what happens with the case is a test to the rule of law and the indian pakistani relationship. moreover, repercussions continue. the threat can be traced partly to mumbai. partly to the plot embark upon against denmark, which involved

into a venture by al qaeda. most western investigators describe the merging operations chief of al qaeda, hadley using his training for the biocide -- isi to scout targets around the world. there was a dynamic resurgence of kingpins' across the group's bid operatives of al qaeda and other groups to target europe. remaining itself a source of threats, attacked by the groups or those aspiring to reach the camps and doing things on their own as well as veterans that are affecting amidst increasing tensions. these threats of attacks in europe shows the influence of

lashkar on al qaeda and the way that the groups are blurring together. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. i think we have time for one round of questions. we will take a few and have him respond in the interest of time, if it is all right with everyone. yes? >> hello. we are a think tank from washington, d.c.. my question, as you were saying, a core component of training is to discredit those who have for centuries

dedicated themselves to pluralism, one would have to argue that pakistan is at serious risk of losing its modern muslim identity. how can they institutionalized as able to work with in these movements? >> did you understand the question? >> i think that your question was given the manner in which they have tried to discredit the muslims in pakistan and moderate islam to help to stabilize at various points, how can the u.s. better than lit? in the interest of time, if we

have any other questions, we will bundle them. we will take two more. >> good morning. my name is monica robbins and i work for the lockheed center of security analysis. i read an interesting assertion the other data lashkar has begun to extend its hand to the acolytes in the red corridor of india. could anyone in the panel corroborate that? what are the long-term implications for the region? >> can we take one more? all right, we will take two more. do we have time for that? thank you.

>> i am a professor at the george mason school of public policy and corruption center. you had talked about hadley and his role in drug trafficking. did you find other connections in this attack? they were very profound in the previous attacks in the 1990's. did you find any links in the latest attack? >> we will take these three and then we will do another round of weekend. go ahead with the question about the degree to which let is threatening muslims in pakistan today and what the u.s. can do to empower muslims in pakistan as a counterbalance.

>> the threat is to india. a threat to india's insistence. they want to break up india and set up an islamic state their. lashkar is not aiming for global jihad in the immediate future. i believe that their leadership is very clever and pragmatic. over the last 10 years they have kept relations with the establishment without going against the pakistani stayed.

i am sure that everyone must have noticed in the morning having read the general was when someone asked or mentioned lashkar-e-taiba. remaining the most favored groups in pakistan for the military establishment, i do not see pakistani military establishment going against them in the immediate future. for several reasons. the military is not ready to abandon the policy of using jihad as an interim -- instrument of defense policy. there is no threat aspect to the world from lashkar-e-taiba in the immediate and foreseeable

future. however, i think it will be different in five to 10 years. >> asking a follow-up -- given the threat of lashkar in the violence directed at turn 1, leaving that aside for a moment, to what degree do you suggest uploading let has had success by in terms of drawing people to interpretation of islam and converting [unintelligible] embracing job. is this something that we should be concerned about in terms of stability in pakistan? anything we might be able to do about that? >> lashkar-e-taiba has only

committed violence in india. not in pakistan. fox the people are being attracted very much. the last time i counted the number of the members, it was more than 300,000 armed and trained. which is very, very threatening. it is growing, i was still counting at 300,000. my sense is that the pakistan military agrees with this strategy. the pakistani military is very

india centric. they have lost trust. i think that in a few years that would like to see lashkar. >> thank you very much. sebastian, would you like to take the question on the other criminal connections? >> i did not see many connections to crime in the attacks themselves compared to the previous attacks, but there were connections to crime. showing the level of connections that they had, the people were introduced to smugglers for smuggling weapons across the border into india.

one of the reasons is that the conception of the attack was different in that you have this excellent undercover reconnaissance operation in which there was great reliance on them. they did much of the work projected from outside. others were involved and we do not know about all of them, i am told. but i am not aware of anything in death, as you mentioned. >> i do not know if you have seen anything about the connection to the national agenda. this has been reported on for a least a year and have well, some elements of let might be trying to assist of the malice -- mao

ists by and india. i do not know if others on the panel have dug into that. but i can attach to the notion that is something that has been knocking around for awhile. it would speak to the degree in which these attacks have shifted and expanded even further and the degree to which the book -- the group is willing to draw a line outside of the circle. i wanted to second the point from sebastian on criminality. 2008, it was long believed that the criminal underworld would come to light at some point as involved with no evidence suggesting that is the case. criminal networks in india were intrinsic to their ability to

build up their own presence. coming together in large part through the involvement of members of the south asian criminal underworld. quickly, to comment on the point in question about threats within pakistan, my sense is that within a large degree the appeal of lashkar in pakistan is 340 -- threefold. one, they fight against india. two, they have not turned their guns on the state. 3, they are providing services that many others are not. to the degree that the u.s.

against -- can take steps impact to pressure the pakistani is to take over this infrastructure themselves and the degree to which we can help support that and the growth of education and development in the country, those will both be very important. the case remains that even as it has been banned in the u.n., it has not been banned in pakistan. the entire structure that is used remains expanded. so, something needs to change in that regard and there are going to need to be carrots and sticks. do we have time delicate unfortunately, we will have to leave it there. thank you very much. [applause] >> everyone, we are taking a brief break for lunch. there are lunchboxes outside

immediately to a left. grab one of three different kinds of lunch, come back in, enjoy it and we will celebrate our keynote speaker. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> our coverage of this terrorism conference continues. you will hear remarks from the former afghan security director. this is about 50 minutes. >> phase one, there was an assumption of debt would be taking care of on the other side of the borders. phase two is a staple. during phase two, as he wallow -- as you all know, the afghanistan people did their

homework. things were going very well. pakistan was keeping the taliban in hibernation. this continued until late 2005. that is when restitution building started. i call that phase three. that was when a mistake was made. with the approach of the lead nation taking responsibility to build and afghanistan institution and the united states responsibility for building the afghanistan national army, germany, the afghanistan national police. taking the responsibility for narcotics eradication. italy taking the case for

judiciary reform. they soon find out after one year or so that this strategy is not going to lead to the creation of a cohesive the state. now everyone regrets why we've wasted so many years on that approach because the results were not wanted. during the launch of this approach the taliban reemerged. they had already come back but they had concentrated on the most remote parts of the country. villages, exploiting the lack of presence of the government. they were able to establish, as i said, small bases.

many of which were significant urea -- significant. popula everyone was of the opinion that they were gone and defeated in their villages. that they would not be able to become a strategic threat. this is still the time that people believed musharraf was not, as previous speakers said, a double game player. they all thought that he was an honest, strategic ally of the united states. of all of the things i wanted say to the distinguished journalists tonight, i fully agree with the description of the establishment in pakistan.

it is 2006. 2006 when the attention of the united states -- i would not call it diverted, but split between iraq and afghanistan. iraq takes the bulk of the u.s. attention. the taliban emerged again as a strategic threat. what do i mean by strategic threat? they are able to make the highways on secure. able to attack district centers and fobs. intimidating people within the city. until the sector became more clear than they had established, there were bases in afghanistan. at this point the commander of nato was general richards.

he launched the famous operation medusa. it was to approve the taliban from their known basis in southern canada are. yes, they were uprooted from three districts. but the general did not have sufficient resources or manpower to pursue them further. so, because he did not have enough soldiers or resources, he came to the afghanistan government and said -- let us have a change in strategy. let's have afghan -- afghanistan beefalos those. -- be full of zones. only developing certain parts of afghanistan developing model

areas so that those that remain outside currency a better live and will volunteer to say no. the afghan government right away rejected this approach. by then the taliban had become a strategic threat. before i elaborate on where we are well, i must say that in 2001 and 2002 the taliban was not entirely defeated. they were forced out of afghanistan, losing territory, command, and control. losing their fighting machine. as for the leadership of the taliban, they had gone to pakistan and in pakistan they had been protected before -- protected by the pakistan military in the tribal areas. we all realized in 2007 and 2008

the taliban had reemerged. we saw signs of the blame game. roof megaphone diplomacy started. lack of resources with international community lack of confidence. as well as a lack of a strong political will on the part of afghans to do something meaningful. in terms of how you deal with this problem, a series of reviews began in washington. needless for me to say which reviews, you can find some of them talked about in the book, ."ama -- "obama's war but do you do with an enemy that has reemerged?

the prescription says the surge of foreign forces. more u.s. troops. why? because for such a long time they have neglected to create a viable afghan force. now that the taliban has some in such a big number, the development of afghan national security forces will take more time. the easiest way to counter them is more u.s. troops. rather than bringing more troops into afghanistan, they say we have to enlarge the size of the afghan national. that is where we are. what is the problem on the face? there are a number of problems with the current strategy. in the current strategy the united states still believes pakistan is honest.

or at least more than 50% honest. you hear these words in pakistan. not very confident and certain themselves. not very confident about remaining in that part of the region, there for keeping the boys for rainy days. for a second, think the to do not remain in that part of the world forever does that justify pakistan to grow and create these militant groups? i think not. the other problem with current strategy is this. let me before elaborating the problems of the current strategy, i have to say, every

single u.s. soldier in afghanistan is fighting with dignity and honor. i am not saying this because i am here in the united states. my views are very well known. they fight for the u.s. national interest, but in the meantime protection for the afghan and without them we would face massacre and disaster, god knows what kind of future afghanistan behalf. explainingbut whwhat i am as a problem is in no way a means of this respect. general petraeus is trying to solve a problem by going to the villages, expanding and spreading the afghan government. but there is a fundamental

problem that i call the problem of political theater in afghanistan. id is that-from reality. so, you have these politics not completely supportive of the mission with soldiers going out to the villages. the question is, which of these is a priority? special forces doing night operations? for a consistent policy to solve some of the understanding issues and make that a viable partner. we have to have a common in unified narrative.

without that strategic merit of messaging, we will not be able to carry on propaganda in the united states or afghanistan. a while ago and gave an interview from my home village in afghanistan to national public radio. by coincidence i opened their web site and i've read the opinion of the americans about what i had said. i could see the narrative about this war becoming blurrier. it is not as clear as it was on september 14, 2001, or even 2008. some of the americans who had commented on my interview said that this man does not make sense. he talks about history, values, this and this -- why should we

go all of the way to the other end of the world and fight for him? what does he mean when he says whether or not americans are here, we will defend the valley them of what do i mean? before 9/11 we were fighting for the taliban. -- fighting against the taliban. fighting for a day when an afghan woman is treated as a human being and not as an animal. what i meant was then if the united states abandoned us, this is no longer going to be something we can win. it does not mean that we will give up.

we will continue. because we have not seen the stage where the enemy is defeated. you, the united states, came to us with an distinct objective. defeating al qaeda and making a viable government for afghanistan. which of those three have been achieved? in my opinion we have managed or achieved in the third objective, but not in the proper manner. there are flaws in problems with the. the taliban are not defeated. what has blurred the narrative is the talk of reconciliation. we could reconcile with al qaeda and the telephone -- taliban on

september 20 of the 2001. what was the need for these billions of dollars to be spend? it is the same enemy. of course, if we hear the speeches of major western politicians saying that failure is not an option, and that it seems as though failure is an option. the key message, coming to washington, is that this is a winnable war and that the nature of our enemy has not changed. the fundamentals of the same. people tell me things improved after the surge. i said yes. there are no more bombs. suicide attacks have decreased.

but has it brought a fundamental change? has something changed in pakistan? know. have we captured and killed, or other was brought into the negotiation table, taliban leadership? have we defeated al qaeda? know. there has been a temporary effect as afghan security forces capable of holding their ground that u.s. troops hold. why is that? many reasons. but one reason that i keep emphasizing is the narrative of the mission not being what it was six to four years ago. people tried to create a reduced agenda.

the basics are the same. the same global agenda for these groups. many people might ask, the taliban has taken back part of afghanistan. will they be able to bring key interests? remember, when they did help al qaeda with 9/11, they have the same weapons. two, think of it from another perspective. a group like this to feeding 40 countries, creating the perception of the feet, by resolve sticking to an ideology and converting fertilizer with sanctuary. you can bring down they go. woof -- nato.

now, this is a narrative for the continuation of war. what is the solution? after resignation many people called me anti-peace. that is not true. i can see my dignity protected. my family is in afghanistan. i have no one living outside afghanistan. this is why i a said i m local. so, what is the alternative if we do not want to conciliation? weakness of narrative or continuation of mission is fragmented. political cobble is not fully willing and they have in-depth

knowledge of those reasons. i would put it in simple terms. you'd take the headquarters out of pakistani intelligence headquarters basement, and if they were not? of one another. the of the guns or the spread of fear or intimidation. interday's resistance

afghanistan did not belong to a faction. surrounded by the democratic philosophy but, many of them are modern politically. as they give up their weapons they can travel in areas controlled with these. several societies are active. by have been warning in the one to -- morning and i want to reassure the warning, without pushing the taliban to declare food their commanders are, a deal will be a disaster for afghanistan and the united states. i want to very briefly say -- what do i mean by disaster? let's say that tomorrow we have

a deal with the taliban that gives us deceptive stability. giving an excuse to reduce the number of troops significantly without seeing whether we have changed the basics are not. the enemy will remain as mysterious and on known as the day without us going to their roofs. and then fighting starts again. it will be easy for western media to say that this is how they do it. these tribes, they fight. once again we will be dropped from attention of the world until you face another disaster and come back, saying okay, we did not know that the enemy was not defeated.

so, the deal might be the susceptible, but it will not be long lasting in terms of stability where they will have confidence to invest or convert afghanistan into a viable economy and a state that will receive off some resources for subsidized institutions. that is an alternative. not from the position that i was out of the government as a political activist. you might think that no one is talking about a deal. so, am i talking about before something has happened?

all the juno is that we are so desperate for this quality, they take him to the president of the country and say -- hearing is the taliban. talk to him. what if he is flown by a nato air plane? that is desperation. why in his third meeting was he brought to the presidential palace? because everyone is desperate for a deal. why send a subordinate? did we dream of good friday accidents? both were very lengthy processes.

i was asked -- i was told when i asked some of the organizers of this conference, what is the expectation for me to talk to? remember, i was trained to listen. i am not used to speaking. that is why i told you, if you find it boring, but with me. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. we will open up for a couple of questions. where is the microphone? ok. first question, we will call upon someone who has not asked that question today. anyone on this side of room?

>> are you saying that you can see a time in the foreseeable future where would you all right to open up peace talks with the taliban? what conditions do you need on the ground before your part of the country believes they could have success? >> this is a very good question. if is a fundamental matter. the speakers the spoke before me, without quoting sometimes i will be accused of carrying my mother in a live sentiment for the rest of my life. three of these gentlemen set --

set that isi was involved in the mumbai bombing and that lashkar- e-taiba is becoming a master of operations for al qaeda. so, we talk about all of these proxies', but not the master proxy, the pakistani army. what does the pakistani army want to achieve? by saying to washington that we are victims going back to being the masters of wallabies proxy operations, they want to gain influence in the region. now, they might tell you, look at the suffering of our people. people do suffer in tribal areas.

you continue to hear the news of the suffering of people in tribal areas. one bomb blast in the inner cities of pakistan and they take it seriously. pakistan believe that by promoting these groups, it will be like fire in the servants' quarters. it will not burn down the main palace. before them, tribal areas have continued to burn forever. what we do not see clearly is a u.s. strategy that is consistent on the fundamental issue of pakistan.

a country that despite your protests, despite the threat of sanctions and one time sanctions, they did a refresher. a country that promised you -- trust us, but leave us. 9/11 has changed us. i was with them yesterday and they said they had not changed. they were the same. but she believed in them. now, the united states believes that by giving more money and more resources to pakistan we can convert their behavior from bad to good. but instead of rewarding bad behavior, which continues to keep them having bad behavior -- i say let us start negotiations today.

changing some of the basics for which nato went to afghanistan. sitting with me around the negotiations table, demanding what? they are not under pressure. who is under pressure? they go and attack the outer circle of the taliban, but not the inner circle. the circle in the middle received training and resources. so well protected that a brochure can claim to be one of them to start negotiations.

that is where we need to put pressure. putting pressure on the inner circle leadership so that they can come to terms. in terms of demographics, over the next 20 to 30 years takoma afghanistan will be around 80 million people. pakistan will be over 300 million people. they are estimating education and government in the economy. for them creating these proxy groups and creating literature of religious war in afghanistan for promotion of the agenda, in either case it is a double win situation for pakistan.

brough i say that we have not changed the basics to call for desperate talks. if we do, what is plan b? what if we keep asking for reconciliation and the american public opinion becomes exhausted with this very long tunnel that has no light at the end. and then we say what? i do not see it plan b period because there is no plan b, people like me that see the future of afghanistan hanging on a clef, we are preparing for plan b. we say that we have no influence

over nato for the taliban. if nato decides to leave and taliban wants to continue the fight, who will be the victim? those that wish to live moralistic afghanistan. you might ask -- political theater must partner with you for the sake of afghanistan and strategic messaging. creating a narrative that serves the afghan and american public on the same page. >> question in the back.

in the back of the room. >> yes, we know that this strategic review is coming out next week. we presume that it will be released by the white house and we have heard relatively positive remarks from the secretary yesterday. regarding how progress is going in afghanistan. if you had an opportunity to make a few points in that strategic review, what would they be? >> a very good question. let us constructed test for the afghan government.

let us revolutionize the speed of left and security forces as relevant institutions involved in government. pakistan, from september of 2011 in the united states, they have not earned wholesale cooperation. this individual, that individual. pakistan has not provided you with the wholesale cooperation. these tribal areas seem to you and to us, not so much located

in [unintelligible] as afghanistan. you should say that either by july of 2011 or else we will do the job for you to. this part of pakistan from where you have suffered, from where you claim to have great leaders that were killed, we will change it for you. those will be like three points. without those tests where everyone measures progress to suit their interests, it will lead change the fundamentals. i am not contradicting the

assessment of secretary gates. i am saying -- how do you change the fundamentals? the fundamentals have not changed. we should not adjust ourselves based on the mood of the enemy. we should adjust ourselves based on the intention of the enemy. the intention of the enemy is as vicious as it was on 10 september, 2011. they are moveod swings. one day they manage to do a bombing, one day they can't. perception that things are improving -- americans, you are right. get your troops out of afghanistan. >> the gentleman right here.

please identify yourself. >> you describe yourself as a politician-activist, but my question would be about, you didn't talk about the ideology of the mujahedin. this idea that they want to fight to receive sihad and go to paradise. from the last sentence that he said, that why local people do not stand up and fight the taliban if they truly think they are is horrible as you described them. i am saying that because, we have mullah omar declared a foreign lang

osama bin laden is declared the leader. in yemen, -- why, why is that? and this jihadi ideology is not a factor? >> my brother, there is no verse and in koran oto say, get one to heaven -- so i wonder why everybody wishes goto go to heaven should be a jihad. i cannot find adverse that versn

koran. and then there is the other, greater jihad -- which is piousness, being good. why do we always opt for the lethal jihad? that is a very complicated, very deep discussion and debate beyond the patience of this conference, but coming back to your point, mullah omar has a point. i am sure if he ever agreed to come to in jamestown, they will not ask him to remove his turban. he has no message. there is no narrative except killing. and i find it truly insulting to say that the message of true

muslims is only killing. there is no moderation. there is no version for this world. this world is only for corruption and jews and non- muslims, and we wait in desperation and poverty to goes to the other world. that is not the sort of message i get from islam. so taliban at best are a group. they do not represent the majority of us. i was fighting the taliban before the intervention of the united states, because of our beliefs, and we will fight again. it is our cause. >> question here in the front. >> thank you. i am from fox news, and i am honored to be one of the directors of the jamestown foundation.

you talked about the fact that kabul, political kabul and the united states are on a different page. what would be your plan "b" to replace the political kabul with the kabul that might be on the same page as the united states? >> i do not have the temptation, the plan, or the proposal to create another front for the international community to handle. not necessarily even a political front to create a headache for the mission. i say we should bring meaningful reform to make the political kabul part of the mission. they should become accountable. they should become responsive. they should become accessible, and they should respect the

common meredith. what is that, narrati common na? from 12 september, 2001, to today, have the basics changed? no. you would still have that problem with extremist groups. they were based in tribal areas, in afghanistan, there were pushed out, they are in tribal areas and attacking us on an everyday basis. so what does it take to make political kabul stick to the narrative? there are plenty of ways. constructing tests for all institutions that are subsidized by your assistance to do their job better. we should not wait. i totally disagree with this literature that afghans will start taking responsibility in

2014. no. there should be a deadline for the completion of the handover. the afghans should take responsibility from yesterday. my message is -- afghan police, ashcan national army should not be a protective force -- afghan national army should not be a protective force. they should be allowed to do operations on their own. it is a cause for us, and their political leaders must do that. we should not be motivated through an op-ed in "the new york times" or fox news. that is not our media. we have our own media. now, meaningful reform, the strategic messaging and also the starting to hand over responsibility, not from today, as i said.

should have started from yesterday. what do i mean by handing over responsibility quickly? if you watch one of the pbs documentary is on afghanistan, which was made to years ago, there is an episode in that documentary that says now you see nato strategy connecting political kabul with the masses. there are nato helicopters flying to the minister's bill is. why should nato fly as to our village. they should say to a minister, tomorrow, i am going to be in that village and i want you to be there as well. the road is dangerous, yes. what it takes to secure that road. it should not be purely a nato mission. i just gave you one of the tests. there can be more instances that shake-up -- there should be more instances that sake of

the political kabul and say, this is our mission. if we fail, this failure will mean something. you should not praise the afghan officials because they speak english or because they impress imf. they must be able to impress their villages. >> got time for one more question, then we will have a break. there is a question in the very back of the room. wait for the microphone. >> thank you very much. i am from voice of america, afghanistan. i have a question in what you call the theater of kabul. what is the purpose of that? if he can elaborate, why there is the political theater?

what is the purpose? what benefit it gives to the elite? and regarding their reconstruction -- reconciliation effort, it is there any ethical issues ethical -=- ethnic issues? was there any pressure from islamabad that led to your resignation? thank you. >> the definition of political kabul is the segment of the society which is involved, who are occupying big positions, big businesses, big media, and are very active in the civil society, and they are benefiting from the security umbrella of nato, but they have a different meredinarrative. that is my definition of kabul theater. kabul theater must be aligned

with the mission. now, your second question is about the reconciliation. sometimes it is being said that the taliban are pashtuns, and the stronghold is helmand and kandahar. if truly they are the homeland and the strong base of the taliban, then people should know taliban are against music. and they know. four weeks ago, one of our rock singers went to helmand. 30,000 people came for the concert. they knew it -- there could be suicide bombers, there could be snipers, there could be every other type of threat. when i watched the concert, it was live on our national tv, i

had heard the songs so many times in my life and i was truly crying for half an hour. crying to see how desperate people are for normal life. 30,000 people came for a concert. now, that means that if you have an alternative and it is meaningful and it is feasible and acceptable and accessible, people will say no the taliban. if political kabul keeps saying, taliban are the sand of the soil. where are they? and if -- they are brought to the palace for negotiations, then people get confused. taliban are pashtuns but pashtuns are not taliban. that is my message.

now, what there is behind by resignation, i do not want to live in the history. it is gone. i have a new life. >> on that note we will end our discussion today and thank him very much for that wonderful presentation. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we will have a short, 10 minute break while the next panel comes up. >> today on newsmaker, anne wagner, candidate for chairman of the republican national committee. she is one of six candidates. watch our interview with her at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. tomorrow on c-span, all six of the declared candidates for the republican national committee chairmanship debate for the

first time. the list includes michael steele. the moderators are grover nordquist and the editor in chief of "the daily caller." watch live coverage at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. original documentary on the supreme court has been updated. today, you'll see the public places and those only available to the justices and their staff. you'll hear about how the court works from all the current supreme court justices, including elena kagan. learn about some of the court's recent developments. "the supreme court, home to america's highest court" airing in high-definition today at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, a conservative perspective on issues in the news, including the economy,

foreign affairs, and the obama administration. this is about 40 minutes. it so our guess armstrong williams is a readiness to be talks -- talk-show host and columnist. -- host: our guest is armstrong williams, talk-show host income of this. you have a recent piece called "finding fiscal religion." looking at the bush era tax cuts and the deal president obama cut to extend them with republican leadership in congress, and you say this is an interesting exercise to return to the debate and analyze some of the reasons given for not supporting the measure. what do you think of the deal? guest: well, libby, if you remember, at the onset when the president was absolutely certain he would not extend the bush tax credits, especially to the wealthy, he said it would only benefit the rich and does nothing to stimulate job growth

and the economy. and then all of a sudden it became an extension for job growth, that it would create jobs, help small business owners who otherwise were struggling in a debilitating economy. somehow or another, the president found religion as to why the last thing you need to do in a struggling economy is add a further taxes to the individual taxpayer, especially small business owners, which are responsible for 80% of job creation in this economy. i think the president came to the realization that an order to give this economy a chance to create jobs, he has to partner with the small business owners and get away from them becoming an remaining his adversary. so, instead of having an adversarial role, a role of let us find issues we come work together on. i actually think the passing of the bush tax cuts was a good thing, good for the economy, especially when it comes to the

engine of the economy, business people. but i think you have an even deeper problem. some people argue that extending the bush tax cut was just another stimulus package, and of the bailout to the economy, and in the long run, how are you going to pay for this? part of the compromise -- this is where we run into serious long-term problems. even when the fed share for 90 monetized the economy with the $600 billion, while he may have helped some situations in the short term, in the long term it will prove more devastating. an economy has its own ecology, its own way of correcting itself, just like our biological bodies. we have the ability to heal ourselves if there is not a lot of tampering and induced drugs. the economy is similar. because of the economy was not given a chance to work out the kinks there are many problems we are beginning to see now in

terms of inflation, hyperinflation -- if you look at the report recently where except in washington, d.c., prices, home values have dropped substantially and they see no recovery in sight. a part of the compromise, when i was getting too, this was not a principled position, part of the president's willingness to extend the bush tax cuts was to extend the unemployment benefits. look, i am a critic of extending the unemployment benefits, but in all fairness, if you look at how the money was spent in the past, the bailout for banks, the bailout to help verizon, harley- davidson, yes, how you justify spending this kind of money on these entities? the most important engine in the american economy is the american people, and if you can waste is money in bailing out the industry's, why not extend the unemployment that it -- benefits to every american struggling to

find their way in life? i don't want to despair to those seeking an unfunded benefits, because you have to understand, many people run into health crisis with loved ones where they must have a procedure and they use their homes as collateral, they use their savings because we are a country -- we believed we do the right thing for a loved one and suffering, god will bless us and will to buy -- multiplied our blessings. unfortunately it does not always turn out that way. but at some point we have to get to the point of of when does it become enough. there are some -- a few in the society who really, you replace their desire to do for themselves, you cripple their initiative to find jobs, to return to the work ethic that built this nation. host: you say two things -- you are saying people need to be helped if they fall into circumstances, but on the other hand, it should not go on to

long. guest: it cannot go on to long. we cannot afford it? how do you spend that which you did not have? i think the united states government -- we have people complaining that these guys are out of control spending, no fiscal discipline, but yet it mirrors the american people in this country. many americans cannot have their fiscal house in order. they spent that which they did not have. reckless. look like -- for example, i saw recently with the court tossed out miller's challenge to murkowski and murkowski will be sworn in the next congress. however, miller was winning, because he said we have to stop this dependency on the government, we have to stop the handout and alaskans have to stand of their own -- but murkowski said, are you willing to lose this benefit, this tax exemption, this benefit, and alaskans overwhelmingly said,

no, and they wrote the name into a firm that committed to government welfare. host: how you see the tea party shaping 2011? guest: the tea party, to many americans, including myself, was really the best thing that has happened to this country in a long time. you may talk about the flaws of the tea party, you may talk about extremists, but all parties can look at itself and find the same in their house. the tea party wants to return this country to financial discipline. to responsible and a focus on austerity. getting rid of the earmarks. i think when the congress tried to pass this trillion-dollar budget which over 6000 earmarks, i think it was the voices of the tea party, those coming in to

congress and those voices still heard round the country that stepped in and said, no, this is the very thing the american people were sending a message about in a recent midterm election. this is not what we want. they pulled back. while they passed parts of the, it will being -- when it passed part of it, it will be on congress to look at it and say how we cut the pork. both -- most congressman survive and are reelected by having earmarks, so how do you in one fell swoop sees the way of doing business with the stroke of a pen? they will fight for it until their death. the bottom line is can the tea party -- it is easy to be against something, very easy. it is a whole different scenario when you go into the body that we see from this beautiful site of c-span, and actually govern. but i actually think they can and will have an impact in the long run.

host: what you see as the strategy for the gop in the coming year? guest: listened, i think -- listen, it is a good insight question that can never be asked enough. they definitely cannot go into this leadership position with the mindset of punishing the president, defeating the president, being against everything the president proposes. one of the things that came out of the extension of the bush tax cuts, the passing of start, the feet of the american dream act is that americans -- defeat of the dream act, they want the president and the white house to work together. i think the gop has to challenge health care. i think they have much to work with. if you look at the census report and the landscape of the country and redistricting, things like ohio, and others

gaining seats run the country, this is certain -- it took talking about congressman chris a niche. guest: he is in jeopardy. but there is a lot of leeway in terms of health care and how to implement it. but they also have to have the boldness to say, yes, the present's health care bill has decided to law and it starts taking effect immediately in january but we will not fund certain aspects that we do not think is fiscally this possible or if it is going to ensure -- not going to ensure real health care. host: republican caller from buffalo. caller: question. always talking fiscal responsibility. why not cut out corporate subsidies shipping jobs overseas, and if you could name me one job that the bush tax cuts have created for america, i would be appreciated.

guest: you know, i hear this -- and thank you for calling. listen, the government does not create jobs. the government can provide incentives and reduce the burdens on those that create job opportunities in this country. being a small business owner and someone in media, i have an understanding of, if you implement a health-care bill where the premiums have already increased 17% to 18% and they go as high as 230% to 40% increase and you have a struggling business and you cannot navigate your business in tough times, you have to make tough decisions. that decision will be sometimes you have to lay off people, or sometimes you have to shut your doors. i think when government policies and initiatives do not burden the small business owner, i think the small business owner has a far better chance of

riding in this economy, and they will do the right thing and hire not only full-time employees but part-time employees, giving people an opportunity. that is how the jobs are created. and i think that is impossible to ignore. host: armstrong williams is a columnist and talk-show host and -- on both radio and tv. he has been on the president's commission of white house fellows under president bush and also the host of "on a point of" from 2002 until 2005. payless and confidential assistant to chairman of equal opportunity commission and presidential appointee to the u.s. department agriculture a legislative assistant to u.s. representative carroll campbell and legislative aide and adviser to u.s. senator john berman. how the use of identified, do you consider yourself a republican, -- how do you identify yourself, as a republican, tea party? guest: i am a conservative

commentator. i went through a difficult period a few -- with no child left behind with the bush administration and i actually thought my media career and would never have an opportunity to appear on broadcasts. so, i made up my mind that it is an inherent conflict for people in the media to also contract with the government. . syndicated column has returned and we blog daily. i enjoy being a journalist.

if the republicans do something of a critical, you up to call them to the carpet. it is working very well. i am just a conservative commentator. i am not in the republican or democrat camp, but i am a third generation republican. i will always be a republican because it is the party of my parents. and i embrace the tea party, not just because i give financial contributions to them, but they represent the fiscal responsibility values that i believe in. e our listeners, what the education department. this is a story from 2005. support among black families, the bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show. that is you. what does that say about you? it seemed like you changed on

what it means to be a commentator. guest: i never saw myself as a journalist. i saw myself as a commentator, as a pundit. everyone knew that i favored republicans, i favored their positions. you know, even though -- and i'm not trying to correct the record here -- we did disclose that we were paid by the u.s. department of education. the only time it wasn't disclosed, where i used bad judgment was "the tribune" out of chicago where i mentioned it without being disclosed that we were paid by the u.s. department of education. it was bad judgment. i paid a huge price for it. you know, journalism is a trusted institution. it is such an important place for information, and people who view and watch this broadcast and you and c-span and the

proliferation media that's out there, they got to believe that what they hear is that you believe in it, it's credible and not -- that someone's not paying you to say it or you being influenced by something you are going to benefit from it. i think that's important. where we begin to lose trust in journalism people will turn you off. i've had a very tough time recovering from that. you know, people -- even when i write columns now people remind me, aren't you the guy that took that $240,000? i paid the price, i'm the best armstrong williams i have ever been in my life and that goes back to -- i had to go back to my value system, go back to my belief system, the things my parents taught me. i have to got to not only write it, it's more important that i live it for myself and i've learned to do that. host: let's go to the phones. marcus, independent line, decatur, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you're on with armstrong

williams. go ahead. caller: the first thing i'd like to speak about, we're blessed to have dick durbin as senator. host: ok. please continue. we can hear you. caller: and secondly, with medicare and medicaid. if medicare and medicaid would be paid back the money that's been borrowed from them over the years there would still be a surplus. host: ok. let's get a response. guest: you know, medicaid, medicare, social security are the three guardrails of sacred cows in this country that are almost untouchable. we know they're bankrupt. and we know that it's just a matter of time before they're depleted of their funds. and to talk about being paid back what is owed, i mean, if you look at state governments across the country from illinois, california and michigan and even new york, a

lesser set, on the brink of bankruptcy, they just don't have the money. they just don't. they were reckless in nair spending. they were irresponsible -- they were reckless in their spending. they were irresponsible. the way that medicare and medicaid and social security has been instituted and implemented has to drastically change because even now they're talking about raising the retirement age to 69. why? because they just don't have the money and i think by 2015, at least by 2016, 2017, that it will totally go bust. host: another illinois caller. jerry on our democrats line. hi, there. caller: hey, hi. mr. williams, i was going to talk to you. i think part of the criticism that was leveraged your way in terms of the no child left behind is we know quite frankly the act, although it was good in theory, from a practical

standpoint, it's just absolutely undoable. it was more of a philosophical debate. i think that's why you were heavily criticized. i guess that's another topic. but the unemployment piece -- and you did articulate well the limit that the republicans are in. many of them talked about not extending unemployment insurance. well, how can you do that and still be for families? how can you do that when we bailed out corporations? i think how you articulated that was absolutely correct. republicans do have a problem in that regard. republicans have to be careful when they go into the next election term about criticizing that piece of the obama legislation. i think obama has shown great leadership in compromising the

tax cuts but also getting some of the things. and i understand the congressional black caucus was upset of how it went about, but i think that shows great leadership. they have to take a great standpoint even though it will cost him some political ammunition. but i do welcome other debate that you have with individual responsibility. i have kind of followed your career. i like where you are right now. i think you're analyzing a lot more center, and so i appreciate communicating with you. have a good day. guest: thank you. the caller, libby, raises an important issue. you know, i don't always feel that the media sometimes understands the debilitating crisis this country is really in. i don't think they get it. i think the most important

story of 2010 was the collapse and the bankruptcy of greece because i firmly believe that the 800-pound gorilla in the room is the united states of america. and conceptually, conceptually people cannot even fathom of something like that happening to the united states. i mean, look at what's happening in europe and france and london and the protests. the very policies -- and this is what's mind-boggling to me -- the very policies that this administration seems to want to initiate in this economy and across the board are the very policies that the europeans are fighting and abandoning because it's come back to just haunt them in the worse kind of way. if you look at the fact in london they want to raise tuition and the outcry against that. they want to cancel the arts. they feel it should come more

from the private sector. and if you're in a crisis -- and this is what we're failing to understand -- somewhere somehow you must sacrifice. and i think with the new speaker of the house, congressman boehner, sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for because the president no longer has full ownership of what happens to this economy going forward. and the bottom line is what this caller hinted to, and i thank him for his kind words, is that you must create jobs. you can talk about bailout, you can talk about foreign policy, what he just described, libby, people can't go to the gas pump. people can't go to grocery stores. and people just don't know how they're going to live day-to-day. i understand this because i'm on the radio every day and i hear the pain from callers which makes me much more sensitive to the fact that this country is in crisis. they're on the brink. now, you probably could never think when you look at places in europe and around the world

that we could have civil unrest in this country, whether it's an attack on the government, whether it's a protest, and it becomes violent. i tell you, unless we get unemployment and this economy in working order, what you're seeing around the world could actually happen on american soil and that is frightening. host: conservative columnist and host armstrong williams is our guest. let's hear from eugene on our republicans line in royal oaks, michigan. welcome. hi, eugene. caller: hi, williams. i want to congratulate you. it's been a while since i called and i almost lost what i wanted to say. but i got to congratulate you. i've listened to you and i live in michigan and i used to listen to you on the radio and i used to have a lot of respect for you. i just wish you could be a role model like walter williams and

dr. tom sewell. and i think you might have some help from the last election with scott and allen. guest: talking about tim scott and allen west, two people just re-elected. it's been sometime since the republican party has had the message, put the resources, the necessary resources to go in places and really find black conservatives that share that message. i think this is a tribute to chairman michael steele. i know he's fighting for his life right now to retain his position as chairman of the republican party but there's a lot of good that's happened on his watch and you can certainly point to what the caller was just alluding to. host: let's take a look at a piece that's in the paper today from "the washington post" looking at chairman steele seeking to keep the top spot. he will join r.n.c. debate.

he confirmed that he'll join the r.n.c. debate. you had a recent column called "the man who just won't quit." tell us about your perspective on michael steele and if you like to see him retain chairman of the r.n.c. guest: you know, michael steele is very complex. i have been certainly his critic as i was in that piece about the man that will never quit. you know, it takes 85 votes from the body to retain that seat. you know, everyone knows about his spending habits. you know, i look at it like this in the long run, and the bottom line is just like being president of the united states, libby. you take credit for all the good, you take credit for all the bad. and no one can deny that two

years ago when president barack obama was elected, no one that it was possible that the republican party could be in the kind of position it is -- it's in today. i remember an article, i think it was in "time" magazine where they had a piece boldly saying that maybe the republican party may become extinct, nonexistent. there was such celebration over president obama. who would have thought that we would be in this position? so it happened on steele's watch. i mean, it started with new jersey, virginia and then scott brought in massachusetts and then the tsunami and the that lacking that the president spoke about in september. so you must give him credit. imagine if he didn't have plane distractions created by himself and sometimes the inability to discipline himself and to show fiscal responsibility in his own house, imagine how much

further along the republican party would be, but you must give him credit that he's put the republican leadership in this country, especially when you look at the landscape and the census and the number of legislative seats that the republicans have gained all across the country, i mean, it's phenomenal. whether he can win again or not i any it's a tough call. i think it's up in the air. but i don't think he will quit. i wanted him to bow out gracefully. it's a fight i felt he did not need. ultimately it's his decision and i respect his decision to want to retain his decision as national chair. host: there was a time when steele would be heralded for his never say die attitude, for his tenacity to keep fighting even in the face of extreme odds. that was the michael steele that no one wanted to throw in the towel. but that was then, and this is now. today, for the sake of his own party, the man must gracefully step down from his post as chairman of the g.o.p.

guest: yes, absolutely. but obviously he answered that and he's decided to run again. host: let's hear from henry, democrats line, michigan. good morning, henry. caller: good morning. armstrong, your rebirth and repackaging is a testament to the deviousness of corporate media and a testament to the stupidity of the american people. host: well, henry, you don't have to be personal in your attack. caller: i'm not being personal. this is a fact. the first thing that came out of his mouth when he first opened his mouth was that president obama saw the light, changed his mind on tax cuts for the rich as a stimulating effect on the economy and that is simply not true. the president would not have entered into that deal had the republicans followed his lead and instituted all the package

deal inside that tax cut where small businesses can write off 100% of whatever they reinvest in their retooling and the payroll tax cuts, all those are the stimulating effects, but armstrong wants to disassemble and bifurcate and obstruct people. guest: i respect the caller. obviously he may have misinterpreted what i said in the beginning and that's fair. my only point was that the president never wanted to extend the bush tax cuts, and because he lost the mid-term election he had to compromise. host: and particularly for the highest earning americans. guest: he had to and it's extended for another two years. that's undisputed. host: what do you say about

that negotiating with the democratic-led senate and the republican house? guest: well, the president -- it doesn't stop our pursuit of missile defense. the only reason why they say he's successful is because the republicans did not join the bandwagon until much later. they joined the bandwagon much later because the republicans, especially on the foreign relations committee, ended up supporting the president because it's a bill they needed and wanted to embrace. it's said in this country, you know, i think most people -- and this is a drumbeat that i've heard around the country -- doesn't want to see any party dominate both houses of congress and the white house at the same time. they want bipartisanship. they want the checks and balances where they keep each other in check. if you look at the polls, most americans overwhelmingly support the bush tax cuts and the packages that were extended and that were passed by this

congress. and so the president can look at this and say, wow, i'm finally listening to the people and the republicans do the same. but the republicans have also shown their unwillingness, because they have to walk a fine line, they're not willing to play this game of bipartisanship if it compromises the very principles that will return this country to a -- to financial as you taret, that will -- austerity, they are not going to support the president blindly. they're willing to work with the president but they will work with the president on things that they feel that they feel they can be agreeable on. i think for a short-term victory period the republicans have won, but they must govern come january 20. and how that plays out is a horse of a different color. host: let's go to patrick, independent line, los angeles. good morning. caller: hello. i have to agree with the previous caller. i think mr. williams should -- you constantly repeat the

talking points as in the government doesn't create jobs. all the soldiers in iraq and afghanistan, are they jobs? this is just republican talking points. you repeat this crap over and over again. nobody challenges you. this is how they get away with it. the same thing about social security. it's not broke. it's owed lots of money by the government. keep repeating it's broke, it's broken bone, it's bankrupt. [inaudible] you can't wait to get your hands on it and take it away from the hardworking people. guest: with all due respect, sir, in los angeles, not only is our government broke, it's near financial bankruptcy if we don't discipline ourselves over the next several years. it's fascinating, and i understand this, we all do it. you know, people don't want to face the reality of the

situation in this country, whether it comes to social security, medicare, medicaid, because people want to believe that while, yes, the government creates jobs but how does the government create anything? by taxpayers. the government cannot do anything without the taxpayers' money. and we want the government to show more respect for how hard we work and earn our money instead of just weighsing the money. in terms -- wasting the money. in terms of another comment you made about the recklessness, i don't think i'm too far from you when it comes to the unemployment benefits. i don't want people to further suffer. i said it's a tough situation and a tough predicament for many americans that find themselves in these very challenging times and i do think the government has a role to play but i think it should be a limitted role. at some point an individual must stand and fend for themselves. it's not the government's role to take care of you. i don't think it's the

government's role to provide health care. i think it's the government role, what you just said, to defend against foreign enemies. i think the government has far overstepped its role and doing things it shouldn't ble doing. it's one of the reasons we find ourselves in financial dire straits today. at what point do we get to be not just consumers but producers, i mean, the economic -- the engine that we once were? we were the engine of society. the idea of whether it was in math, going back to the industrial revolution. we are in an information age now and we don't have the baby boomers who brought so much industry and so much wealth in the dot-coms to this country. i mean, it's one of the things that saved former president bill clinton. at least when he was president, the reason he was able to balance the budget and why he was able to give president bush that incredible balanced budget, it's because he had true entrepreneurs, true geniuses of industries working with him that brought about and helped the economy from the dot-com. that does not exist today for

president barack obama. americans are the best engine, not only for industry, entrepreneurship and recovering this economy. look what happened over the last few days. for the first time in three years, americans have spent -- more money than ever during the holiday season. but guess what, it's not enough, because of the housing crisis. it continues to collapse. and while the american people are doing their roles, we got to find more americans instead of just having their habbeds out waiting on the government to take care of them and what you got to do is extend your hands to the government and create industries and create opportunities to build this economy back to where it once was. host: let's go to shawn, republican caller, in winston-salem. how are you doing this morning? caller: i guess i have two statements that i'd like to make to mr. williams. the first one would be going back to when he was speaking in regards to health care. i notice that there are

companies that offer services throughout the country, but in my state there are only two primary health care companies that offer services. explain to me that while these companies can offer services throughout the country but they can't be a competitive field in regards to offering health care throughout the country? that's the first part of my statement. the second part would be is, if you follow the history of medicare and medicaid, when it was first introduced, the system was right in terms of how many doctors were taking advantage of the system, in regards to how much they were charging the government for patient care versus private practice for patient care. if you want to understand exactly why medicaid is in the situation that it's in, you need to go back to those beginning physicians who really just took advantage of the system. now, part two would be, we speak of -- i hear you speak of

the government not being in the position to create jobs, but people like myself who want to come out of the private sector and become that entrepreneur but when i go to a lender, the so-called small business startup, i can't get any funds. i have a perfect business plan. i hear it so many times, but they tell me, well, there's really -- we don't have enough money, we don't have the money to do these things. why not come up with a true, a true system of being able to get the entrepreneur back out into the mainstream economic system so that, yes, americans can, can be able to grab hold of this economic problem that we have and do exactly what you republicans have always preached about, well, the government is not in the position to create jobs, we

need to do a lot of things? but when you're in position to not get the funds in order to start that small business, what exactly do you have? host: shawn, let's get a response from mr. williams. guest: i think he's on par when he talks about the competition, when he's mentioned it. if you want to have effective, workable health care, you must make it transportable. you must be able to transport your health care wherever your job may take you. and also intrastate. you must have health care not being decided by two major companies. you must have other players become involved where individuals can go. and what it creates is competition where you can go and get a lower cost for your premium. and that does not exist. the other thing you don't deal with with health care is tort reform. i mean, doctors spend 20% of their time on medical malpractice lawsuits and defensive medicine. that has to be addressed.

and the other issue that he talked about in terms of the government and small business owners, you know, one of the ways that the government must understand that it can start up this economy is with startups, small business owners. that is really a solution, finding ways to get banks to loosen credit. you know, the banks made out like bandits. they have all this money. they're not lending, they're not refinancing, people are in foreclosure and they're just sitting on it and there's got to be a way for the president and his cabinet, especially secretary -- treasury secretary and housing secretary must use their bullet pulpit. and if the bullet pulpit is not working through legislation you have to find a way for these banks to go back to small business owners like shawn and others who have the ideas and all they need are banks and sometimes, you know, banks are not the only way that you can find cash flow.

sometimes there are angel investors out there, there are people out there with private funds that are looking for individuals like shawn. you just have to find a way to access them, put together a business plan and convince them that their idea -- your idea and concept is worth -- worthy of investment. host: let's hear from skip, a democratic caller out in california. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. let me tell you, this is such a bunch of republican talking points. this guy is a shield for the republican party. i'm a plumber in california. there's no work out here. my company had over 300 plumbers. now, they have 20, and it's hard for them to hold on to them. i've been out of work for three years. nobody's building houses. nobody's doing anything. the one thing i know about conservatives is they don't want to pay for anything. they came in with a surplus and immediately gave tax breaks to

people and started two wars and put a medicaid prescription drug on the tab. you know, this whole thing about we want to pay for things, that's a big bunch of crap. guest: you know -- and thank you for your comments. you know, there's nothing under the sun, libby. we've seen unemployment crisises like this before when reagan took office. i mean, not just on unemployment, but interest rates were sky high. what did the president do? he fired the comptrollers. instead of him increasing government spending, he reduced government spending. they went in and encouraged entrepreneurship, small business owners, and i understand the call remember saying he has not been able to find work for almost -- for three years. i mean, yes, the government has some role to play but the government cannot be all things to all people. at some point you cannot say

that the government has to be the engine and the safety net for everything. people have to become creative and disciplined and get back to some kind of work ethic to create work for themselves. you know, there are people that cannot take care of themselves. i think children and senior citizens should be -- that's something we should be compassionate but very sensitive about. but for grown people in the prime of their life, like the guy who called in from california, i think at some point you have to start seeing the glass as having nothing in it and you got to begin to fill the glass up. it's a reflection of you. i don't want to appear to be insensitive here to say you cannot find a job, but i refuse to believe that for three years with your skills and intellect you cannot find a job or create a job for the last three years. i find that to be unacceptable, especially if you think of how we struggled to maintain this

country, what this country has gone through the great depression and how we were able to overcome it through the american people. i refuse to accept his argument. host: one last quick item. "usa today" has a piece -- in -- as we look to 2012, anyone making you excited out there? guest: actually not. we've seen this american idol before where we walked these contestants out. it's like a beauty contest, palin, maybe secretary of state hillary clinton, and you have rick santorum. mitt romney. you parade these contestants

out. it's like a butte owe contest. one thing we found from the recent presidential election, a year before he was elected president, he created a revolution. he was disciplined. he made the people believe again. he became president of the united states.. i think someone like that >> c-span is a private, nonprofit company created in 1979 as a public service. coming up, the co-founder of the african-american blog, cheryl contee, on the influence of black political blogs. hen the "no labels'

organization. >> tomorrow, a preview of the 112th congress. then a discussion of pension programs with andrew biggs. then a look at the latest report by the working poor families project with the manager of the project, brandon roberts. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> www.c-span.org original documentary on the supreme court our been -- c-span's original documentary on the supreme court has been updated. also, learn about some of the court's recent developments. the supreme court, home to america's highest court, caring for the first time in high- definition today at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> cofounder of jackandjill

politics.com, cheryl contee, on the influence of black political blogs. she >> it is my great pleasure to welcome our guest, sheryl -- cheryl contee, today. cheryl contee is an unashamed geek and identifies herself as such. she was on the early adapting, cutting edge of digital technology and adapting it to things like fund-raising and organizing and doing the types of things that the technology now makes both easy and complicated in that there is some much going on, so much

changing, but some much opportunity. she has also become one of the most significant forces african- american, middle-class people to address issues of the day. she makes a point in her blog which is called jackandjillpolitics.com, that it is intended to offer a genuine perspective for people who are not into stereotypes of criminal drug dealers, elite athletes, and celebrity stars to happen to be african-american. it is for a very large, very under-noticed middle-class of african-americans who have their own perspective on the world and

who have a need to look at the world through that particular prison, at least in part. jack and jill media politics is one of the ways to do that. i thought that was your major concern. she had just told me that she does that with one hand tied behind her back and as a -- and does a lot of other things involving digital media but the importance to the african- american audience that she is seeking to connect with. we're very glad to have you with us. >> thank you so much, alex, and thank you to edy for inviting me here to speak with the. thank you for attending. i am told this is the last day of class's, taking -- thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to speak with me. the title of our session today is called, "black power 2.0, the

rise of the african-american influential." i wanted to talk about the context in which we launched our blog at jackandjillpolitics.com. perceivedhere's a leadership gap. these were perceived by many as effective, complacent -- ineffective, complacent, particularly on line. this is in part because of the digital divide, as it was seen. many of those organizations said, "black people are not on-

line, so why bother? at the same time, what we see are the post-segregation generation coming of age with a new confidence, highly trained, yet in fused with the passion from their parents for equality and civil rights. this hip-hop generation grew to resent and resist the way that the media placed forward people like jay-z, beyonce, jesse jackson, or al sharpton as african-american leaders or portraying african-americans as premier early criminals. there were a lot who said,

"look, the majority of us are taxpaying, hard-working americans who want a greater nation." is within this context that we see the rise of jackandjillpolitics. there were a lot of us watching with the websites like the daily kos in the open left to were going after a primarily white audience and thinking, "why could we not do that for our people and talk about our issues"? we have a tax having good with people who are highly independent -- we have a technology savvy group of people who are independent. there is a lot of crossover of content. there is a lot of support from white progressive blogs, early latino blogs, online emerging

media, places like the new york times and the washington post. there is a lot of irreverence, a sharp humor coming of people like chris rock, wanda sykes. all that together brought a real richness and a new voice online. i the same time, most of the early blogs, like ours, like skeptical brotha, were synonymous. there is a fear of doing it before. what would mean to our careers from our lives, for people to know who we are? let's test this out. acting behind these pseudonyms, ours with the records to harriet tubman and net turner, it allows

us to act like the junkyard dogs and really aggressively going after not only inaccurate media materials -- portrayals but also african-american leaders that we determined to be ineffective representatives for african- americans. i would like to turn to some of our greatest hits. we started, again, and in 2006. of the course of that time, in 2008 we had the rise of the now first african-american president. people were really of looking for and were eager to understand when african- americans thought about this dive and these policies in the

new form of african american intellectual and politician he represented. going back to 2008, at that time, john mccain and hillary clinton began the cycle of the barack obama in this to. the media picked up on that and ask the question, is barack obama in this? he went to harvard. that's a pretty fancy institution. at the same time, there were a lot of people like us, and we were one of the first to go out and say, "that is really interesting that the sun and a grandson at admirals' and the daughter of a doctor who is a specialist in ophthalmology would call the son of a single teenage mother "elitist." what is going on here?

what is being said about this person? the blog post that i wrote from that time was called, "mclane and clinton called barack obama word'."ty n that is something african- americans in a traditionally said in barbershops rbd salons amongst themselves. now these blogs were actually saying that in the public discourse. that post and others like it appeared on places like the cnn where they showed the screen shots of showing us saying it. we actually were invited to speak on various media platforms. it did turn the national conversation around. mccain and clinton had to abandon that particular attack because it was clear there was a cognitive dissonance their that they would not be allowed to get

away with. another example of work that we have done that is not necessarily media focused but more targeting african-american leaders was are pushing the congressional black caucus members who were super- delegates during the primary season who were saying that they may or may not vote for barack obama may be in favor of hillary clinton instead. they had existing relationships, yet many of this congressional black caucus members in their districts had voted 80% or 90% in favor of barack obama. that was something that many of us felt that it could not stand. after many very high level leaders among american -- african-american congressman, in a way they had never seen before

or experienced, i got called names on national television, and that is fine. i was willing to take it because i was under pseudonym, but also because it was in favor of a greater good which was to push harder on african-american leaders who represent what african-americans actually want and need. many of them like charlie rangel actually had to shift gears and they came out eventually in support of barack obama and did not vote with hillary clinton in an attempt to turn the democratic nomination in her favor. there are a number of ways and you may be some more familiar with them than i am that black lawyers including jack and jill politics, had managed to influence the national discourse on politics. that was a surprise to us.

when we launched the blog in 2006 after working in my office one day, i never dreamed that it would have the impact that it has had and that has been really exciting. i still do the blog in an hour or two per day and there really is a testament to the power of these tools in the power of one voice coming together in coordination with other voices. today in a post-2008 para -- era, we are unmasked and a openly topple -- talk about my work. we are media savvy. we have been quoted in "the new york times,", a boston globe," and we are often invited on the

b.c., al-jazeera, and lessen the seed -- msnbc. i just came from a meeting from the white house yesterday. it was exciting. the third time i had been invited. it has been a great boost in morale and for all the people who are members of the jack and jill politics community. we see ourselves that way. as that.see myself i see myself as a concerned citizen joining in with other concerned citizens working towards positive change. to just briefly talk on the future track into politics, we are gearing up for the 2012 election. we have plans to overhaul the website and kick it into another dimension. among the features we are

focusing on his continued leadership among black political blockers. at the same time building on a strong relationship with the white house as allies, not as a proxy or a puppet. with increasingly develop relationships with the new black media, the ebony or jet 2.0, loop 21. we went to continue to develop those relationships. we have to relationships with latino blogs, progressive, mainstream media, and with organizations that are new such as the color of change which is now the largest african-american focused organization in america with something like 700,000 members. they are much bigger than the naacp.

all these people actually block on jack and jill politics in addition to those who have recruited from the community. what i am seeing is a new harlem renaissance. recall that harlem renaissance 2.0. we have this great migration of african-americans coming from the city's with a new level of education. you see the emergence of really interesting and progressive, politically and socially, african-americans like langston years, duke ellington, josephine baker, i did the wells -- ida b . wells that only changed african-american society but american society for good. i think we are living in a similar time where we have across many different

disciplines, art, science, literature, politics, music, you name it. rigid dynamism. this is not only of interest to african-americans but to a wider selection. when you speak to blockers like 50%r the route, you'll find of our readership is non-african american. there are a lot of people who are not african-american who are also interested in the work we're doing. it is an exciting time. i love speaking at universities like this. i love being able to talk to students. i get a lot of emails and requests from students to talk to them and help them with their dissertations or their thesis. i feel like there's a new generation coming behind us that is both inspired and inspiring. i am looking forward to see

where they create next. with that, i would love to turn it over. >> i would like to ask the first one. then we remind you that you must ask the question from this microphone because c-span is recording. we ask that you just identify yourself. cheryl, one of the things that happened in this most recent election is that the appearance the constituency and barack obama had either changed their minds or were on motivated to get out. i really wonder how you analyze how this will play in 2012 and whether you think this group, which was so important to his election, will rouse themselves in strongly again? >> traditionally speaking, african-american turnon during midterm election tends to be lower anyway. there is evidence out there that shows that the have the

appearances and traveling that the obama as did, both michelle and barack, may have had an impact in actually boosting what would have been much lower numbers in fact. when i think that we're going to see a pretty significant and large turnout, i think that african-americans remain extremely supportive of the president and the polling numbers say that. of course, there is some disappointment. he does not walk on water. african-americans understand that. at the same time, there is still immense pride and support for his work and which represents. >> do you think the organizations you mentioned and of course jack and jill politics are going to have a significant role in marshalling that support? or is your position something

that is removed? are you an activist in peru actively supporting the reelection of barack obama? is your website, community, and your role something more dispassionate? >> the base of our community is in activism, the sense that we are a group of people who come together to get things done. we continue to be. we were one of the first blogs. we were one of the first to support his presidency. they really value that. we are really proud of that. we're going to continue to support the president's reelection. that is something we are keen to do. at the same time, things are very different than they were in 2008. twitter has become increasingly influential in the african-

american community. there was an article in the "businessweek" if you months ago that asserted that as many as 25% of the people on twitter and african-american which is pretty astonishing when we think of and no twitter as a global phenomenon. when you factor in mobile internet access, there is no digital divide. mobil will be incredibly important in the summer -- in this election cycle. we have already integrated some aspects of twitter into how we reach our audience. our blogging feeds directly into our twitter cal. -- account. you can share the feed very quickly and comment directly on the blog. we know that those are important venues for doing the work that

we are. the blog is just a vehicle for motivating a community to change. >> hello and thank you for coming to speak to us today. my question is about old black media. ughts aboutur thoguht "jet," "ebony," and old black magazines? >> the editor came to speak at "blogging while brown." he came in for quite a spanking. while he was speaking during the question and answer, we pulled up their blogs. none had been updated for

months. here he is speaking of the great work of ebonyjet.com and we can see they're not serioues about engaging this new, tech savvy generation. folks like "ebony" and "jet" have a problem. i'm encouraged by essence.com and black enterprise which have moved more confidently and have been rewarded in renewed interest. >> i'm interested in your decision in disclosing your identity.

why are these people afraid to reveal their identities? >> the history of the united states has shown that outspoken black people tend to get shot at. you might think that it was part of the decision to maybe see how it worked out first before coming forward. also, it is a real commitment. for a lot of african-americans who were early loggers, and was a bit of a dipping a toe into the water to understand what it was like. he have to remember that blogs as we know them were just invented in 2002. by 2006, it still will very new. it was very experimental. the choice of pseudonyms was mostly driven up the time by a certain level of fear. if i am not spoken, if i say

some fairly sassy things, are really speak my mind, will that offend people? will defend my boss? will defend the guy down the hall, the lady at the lunch counter? and who knows who might be offended and how will that impact my career or social prospects? most of the african-american bloggers have a very successful professional careers. brooklyn bad boy who now blogs on dailykos is a doctor. you have people who have stakes in their careers and blogging was something that really came out of a sense of spiritedness and participation in the national discourse of politics. easily 70% of the early blockers are now on masked-- unmasked. >> yes ma'am?

>> i am a series producer for wbbh. what does black power 3.0 look like. i understand the current look of jackandjill. >> is that beyond 2012? >> yes, beyond getting someone elected. >> i have done a lot of thinking about it. i will go back to mind personal theory that we are living through a harlem renaissance 2.0. when you look at kanye west and dave chappelle or the root or some of the new artists coming up or the educators promoting

these tools -- the root 100 summit and list is a great place to look and see who the new leaders are. my partner and i were chosen to be on the root 100 of emerging and established african-american leaders. it was a great honor. the two lists are a really great snapshot at what black power 3.0 will look like. as those people grow in their own confidence and hours as they inspire a new generation and as they start to work together, that is an incredible dynamism that, i think, will really electrified this country. it is not just confined to

african-americans. i think black power 3.0 is all about. a cross-cultural movement. >> john? >> i am on the center revisory board. at couple of questions. first of all, on the recent election, i will point out that massachusetts voted and weird -- boded and we reelected the governor with a lot of money spent by the opposition and we have a couple of bombs. -- had a couple of bombs. however, do you think african- americans in other parts of the country realize that their failure to both has put them almost under the thumb of mitch mcconnell and john boehner? are they aware the midterm elections mean something and it

is not only the national election? i will come back for the second question. >> there are varying levels of awareness in general, not only among african-americans but all americans. midterm elections, in general, it tended to have a lower turnout than the presidential elections just pretend they tend to receive in little less media attention. it seems to people as though the stakes are not as high. my hope is that as people see that the obama agenda starts to being blocked by these new tea party members that it will be a galvanizing force for a higher turnout in the next cycle. >> my second question relates to congressman rangel. sunday morning on cbs, they

virtually closed with ben stein giving a ringing endorsement of charlie rangel going back to his military record which i was never aware of. you have to keep in mind all the things he has done. how did the black streak the rankle thing? -- treat the rangel thing? how did you feel that they felt that? this is a somewhat complicated a share. when you hear a conservative like stein saying it really does not matter in the greater scheme of things, how did you think the black-and-white cars handle this type of thing? >> certainly, charlie rangel has an incredible history. he was one of the founding members of the congressional black caucus which come at the time, it was something that no

one had ever done before and has become a very important institution within congress. he is a land of his time. i think history will show him as a positive influence. -- he is a lion of his time. with his troubles, particularly around with his dominican village, there was a certain eye "here wend a senes ose of go again." another black politician goes in and gets corrupted by power. it was seen by many as a tragedy, a tragic figure, and, frankly, a figure that invokes a certain shame and disappointment. that is where i would say things

are. i do think that he has been probably treated a little harshly. some of the things he has done probably amounts more to taxation and shears, if he did not go after any teenage pages or anything, but the charges were serious and i think there were 11 -- 14. that is a lot of charges. he has been made to answer this and correct those. i hope for new leadership in harlem. there are some really interesting leaders coming up in that district. charlie rangel is 80 years old. and some point, he is going to retire. that will happen and probably soon. what i am looking forward to is

really engaging in supporting some of the new and very important leaders coming out of the district. >> i am a student here at the kennedy school. i was just wondering, what do you see for the future in terms of technology that we should embrace right now to attract people? secondly, are there specific technologies that would appeal to african-americans as opposed to the general population that you could really draw on to get more political activism? >> again, twitter has become increasingly an important technology. my partner has 66,000 people following him on twitter. i tweet less often. i have 3000 people following me.

i go after quality. we know there are not only black bloggers but white bloggers, latino, asian-american, other luminaries, activists, various campaigns, politico, etc. twitter, for us, is increasingly important. we do have a facebook page. people were finding me on facebook despite my best efforts and were trying to become friends with me personally. that is still happening, but we decided to create a page to channel the community he seemed to be eager to engage in that median and that site continues to grow. one thing we want to do in the

on theis focused more facebook page. but people can comment not only on our side but loss one facebook and also mobile. mobil is very important. when you look at use of the internet on phones, not only is the new digital divide it, but african-americans are more likely to buy smartphones in use tools like mobile tv. certainly we see mobile as we reached courage african-american intellectuals but a wider group of african-americans who may fall in the working class or poorer communities who are using mobile as their primary means of reaching the internet. one of the things we did earlier this year is to make sure our web site is accessible on mobile phones to make sure that we were not leaving the audience behind

and that we're there for them when they are looking for whenever sends -- someone sends them an e-mail. they can see it on their mobile phone. we hear that a lot. i think this may be unique to the african-american blogs, perhaps, but what we hear anecdotally and incorrectly is that there are people who read the blog in various forms to then pass that on either through twitter or e-mail to 100 of their friends or everyone they know who has golf with them or what have you. it is a community of leaders of their own community. we understand that they may influence a lot of other people. >> item from the law school. you mentioned that black people

largely support obama. as a political critic and social commentator, the you ever feel at odds with your role in your support for obama? how do you feel about criticizing him in an open stage when you know a large percentage of your readership is not black and you are worried to make criticism you do not agree with. >> the first time i had to write a critical of post about obama and just about broke my heart. i tell you what. at the same time, we do see ourselves as having to hold black leaders accountable. he is not only the leader of the nation, but a lot of african- americans see him as a president who happens to be black. i would say we are probably 90% supportive of the obama administration and we act as a

form of defense for him. we did that during the election and we do it now. at the same time, there have been instances where we have parted ways or we felt that things could have gone a little better, such as van jones or an number of choices that may have been handled differently. when we have had those instances in have actually gone public on the blogs, those have met often with resistance from our readers. there is a segment of our community that cannot broken any criticism for the president. it is very frightening. how dare you say something negative about the president? most of them tended to be our older readers. we have called the amount in the comments. how old are you? where is this coming from?

in the form of criticism seems to be that we are weakening him. we are applying the same game. we have to have his back matter what. what distinguishes the hip-hop generation from may be an earlier one is we feel like he is strong enough to take it. other groups in america are strong enough to distinguish a critique of his performance while still respecting the of the work he is doing and having it not discredit everything he is doing. they really messed up with sherrod so that means he has some kind of a monkey. i think people were smart enough to not make that choice so that is why we feel comfortable enough to take a

strong stand and hold them accountable and to make them accountable even when it makes some of our audience uncomfortable. some of them will come around. that is the track that we take. >> hello. first, i am a little uncomfortable with referencing how blacks feel because i'm presume your audience is the verse and -- is the first. i wonder how you did knowledge the difference in opinion and also how broad you intended to become, like the treatment of issues of income disparity, health disparities, world trade, economic impact on disenfranchised people, poor people in other countries? i would just wondering if you

wanted to bring those issues to the attention of your audience? >> thank you for your questions. that is a two-partner. i will take the first one. we were surprised early on when we discovered that our blog had an appeal far outside the african-american middle class and even today our audience is probably 30%-50% non-black. that is multicultural. whites, asian americans, latinos, native americans, whoever they are, some of them are reading jack and jill politics. that was really exciting for us and a little confusing. it was akin to the appeal of someone like david appel movies clearly coming from his own

experience as an african- american and get the issues he is talking about and the ways to able tout them are i appeal to others. hip-hop is no longer an african- american phenomenon. and is a global phenomenon. --y're going to send out seek out that vernacular. we have maintained a focus and a target on speaking to the predominantly african-american audience. we have invited non-african american people who are doing really interesting things that we think our persian america in the right direction and sharron the same believes you're not african american.

applied research center, america's voice, they represent non-african americans but they are doing amazing working and they get it. they are able to bridge the gap between asian-americans to their beliefs, muslim americans, there believes -- and their beliefs, immigration, latinos, and the race baiting that is done in the immigration debate versus the race baiting in other conversations. your second question on reaching out to a broader base for politics. we are focused on the black version ozzie's -- black middle class. i have been on bbc world

service. al-jazeera as has come to my house and then a profile on me. i know that we've reached an international audience. we have, at times, taken on issues that are on side of u.s. politics in part because we know that african-americans are interested in those topics. certainly the call to tackle apartheid in south africa was driven, in strong measure, by african-american middle class people who saw a parallel between the struggle to and segregation and jim crow here and apartheid in south africa. that same type of activism is something we know is of interest to our audience. it is something we would like to

do more of overtime. i would like to talk gone -- touch on issues like foreign policy, but it is challenging covering the wide gamut of u.s. politics and do that well. >> to follow up with one quick question. how much political diversity of opinion is there in your audience? do have african-american conservatives who certainly must be well represented in the middle class audience you're talking about? or is mostly an audience of african-americans and others who have essentially the same political perspective? >> it has changed over time. the diversity of viewpoints. i would say it was largely people who were progressive when the first started. over time, we have attracted an older audience and they tend to

have more conservative viewpoints and have different viewpoints on topics like gay marriage and has pushed back on non general viewpoint that the gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered deserve a quality in some things. there are very strong conservative black laws like hip-hop republican. primarily, those people tended to stay on those blogs. we do have conservatives who, and sometimes -- who come and are sometimes interesting. some are trolls. we think some may have been paid. they posted a little too frequently in a way that was

not normal. it's not clear online who's black, who's white, who's latino. we don't always know who people are, but at the same time just as the congressional black congress, it is not a monolith. even though most of them are democrats. within that sphere, you have people who may be more conservative, who may be more progressive, and we have that with that our audience. sometimes we disagree with each other. i will post something on the blog and someone will come behind me and not necessarily directly criticize me, but have a completely different viewpoint or a different view on the issue. that is okay. when we started the blog, we actually cultivated that sense

of presenting the varying ideas and ideals among african- americans. we will have that topic publicly in a way that just used to be about the region around the kitchen table. >> hello. i am studying at the kennedy school and die from the congressional 15th, charlie rankles district. i want to use him to frame line question. oftentimes, the internet, or new media, whether it is a blog, for its website, they tend to criminalize political leaders. we are now seeing this happen to ordinary poor black people. a great example of this would be google earth. where nypd was able to use footage from google earth in a

robbery. aside from always gathering opinions and how we are as a community in our voice, one of the things that seems to be omitted is how this technology is not used responsibly and how it can potentially criminalize us and demonize us in ways we have not yet thought about because of our great propensity to adopted so greatly and use it to a greater measure than others groups do. as someone who has been in new media, i am gravely concerned. the community, being the black community and the larger one at large, is not talking about this and how it is being used to identify and profile. is a new definition of racial profiling that no one is yet talking about. as a new yorker, it was really troubling to think that here we are and a google birth snapshot

can be submitted as evidence in a case where it seemed like just circumstance. it did not seem like really bad stuff. will that be the new dimension of profiling for us that we need to be concerned about? >> any weapon can be used for good or evil. there are legitimate concerns about the ability of these new tools to hurt as well as hell. -- help. i have concerns, certainly, about the use of these tools to track what we're doing. it is very difficult to be anonymous which is one reason i actually came out of the shadows was because i wanted to control that experience myself and not have that happen to me. anyone can find out who anyone is now, right?

my hope is that these tools will actually reduce the number of african-americans who looks like someone that they saw, right? i saw this guy walking down the street and he snatched my purse. someone is that able to tell african-americans apart because they are not around them very much so someone is on just the convicted. my hope is that cameras in police cars, we are seeing increasingly where someone is engaging in police brutality and they are forced to answer to it because there is a camera in that car and it shows up on youtube. my hope is that as african- americans become more digitally savvy, not just african- americans, but those who like african-americans, african- americans and their friends, use these tools to push back. of course there are concerns

about safety, profiling, but i think we can mitigate those. when you look at a topic like neutrality, i am more concerned about net neutrality in the making sure there is equal access to the internet for all citizens, certainly there is a red-lining in districts where poor neighborhoods that may be more likely to be african- american do not have a full or fast broadband speeds. there are a number of issues that are also of the concern to african-americans as the globe changes how we communicate and how we can act. >> any specifics about what the african-american community should be doing? who should they be talking to? i do not feel like our politicians are informed.

having a discussion about neutrality, it is a glazed look over the bulls face. they do not know what the technology means or location- based services. how do we take this to the next step? >> we do this at jack and jill politics. we have been keen to educate people on the importance of topics like net neutrality and racial profiling in all of its forms and to galvanize people into action to work with partner organizations that are pushing lawmakers on that. i think it is changing very quickly. there are people who before did not know how to use e-mail, but a location-based service is, but now they have gps in their view it. -- buick.

the older generation which happens to coincide with the civil rights generation is getting up to speed -- slowly -- but they are getting there. it is a matter of making sure that those who are digitally savvy, who have not only cross the digital divide but are the five bearers are actually bringing people back with them. >> if you have a question, you have to talk into the microphone because we are on c-span. ok. while you were making your way to the microphone, let me ask you this quickly. one thing you are really interested in our black geeks. how do you see that community of black geeks expanding? rapidly expanding? is the issue of mobil expanding or do you mean something else? >> that is a really decisive

question which is why you run this place, i expect. it is rapidly expanding. when we first started, literally there were a handful of the blogs like us and now there are thousands. black people have more or less taken over twitter, as i mentioned earlier. the expansion is happening very quickly. i am not a social scientist, so i could not necessarily explain to you why. in part, i think it is because these tools tend to provide some social the advantages that mitigate some of the social disadvantages of being african- american. when you apply for jobs online or you are having a scientific discussion on line, people do not know whether you are black or white. or purple. or a dog. i think what is powerful and in how this is spread is that this

mechanism that people using are letting them lead over barriers. also in the black the community, these are people who have managed to find strong careers were your complexion does not make a difference as long as you can code. they do not care if he had two antennae and three eyes. we are seeing that at the blogging while brown conference which started a few years ago with maybe 50 people and has doubled every year. every year, we are getting strong procedures. -- stronger speakers. facebook and microsoft for speakers this year. it was sponsored by comcast. corporate entities are also really interested in this really technically savvy, engaged, and connected community.

>> yes, ma'am? >> i am a new yorker as well. i came through the school in the early 1980's. on a local level, i have this chip thing here. i would like to ask if anyone has presented the question about a -- how can i say this, double standard for some of the black politicians because is what is happening with diane wilkinson here in boston? they are being demonized, jailed, or thinking about sending them to jail. there are other people have taken way more and done away worse than them and they walk around scot-free. i like to know if you have addressed that or have anyone has asked about a double standard either here in this

arena in boston or anywhere else. i would like to know your opinion about that. >> yes, we have addressed that on the blog many times. we asked to hold the african- american leaders accountable, but we also want to see that they are defended, as well. we have spoken, not just me, but other bloggers on the top that -- topic that, "are african- american leaders held to a higher code of conduct"? it can see that in certain classic cases where there are leaders to have gotten away with things. an african-american leader who may have done that -- larry craig may be an example of

someone who mady have held on longer than charlie rangel if he had engaged in similar behavior. it is a topic we touch on. i think it is changing over time. i think the service of barack obama as president is probably going to change that forever taught african-american politicians are perceived if he does a good job. that is our hope. >> cheryl contee, thank you for being with us. good luck, jill. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> ann wagner is one of the

candid is running for the chairman of the rnc. watch that interview live here on c-span. tomorrow, all six of the declared candidates for the republican national committee chairmanship debate for the first time. the list includes the current chairman michael steele. they've moderators are the founder and president of the group americans for tax reform and the editor in chief of the on-line political magazine "the daily caller." that will be live on c-span. >> the original documentary on the supreme court has been newly updated. today, you can see the grand public places and those on the available to the justices and their staff. you will hear about how the court works from all of the current justices including the newest, atlantic taken, also learn about some of the recent -- the newest, elena kagan.

also learn about the court. caring today at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the national leadership meeting for the new labels organization. this is a new grass-roots movement that brings together americans

>> you can change the world with seven women and a facts machine. i am excited about no labels. i am here because we are focusing on getting women into leadership in america and getting a political mass of women in leadership in america. we would be able to do a lot more of everything we have been talking about if we had so many women who have had to work without power and no labels for a long time. [applause] that is why i am here. we have put a lot of attention into this political area. in the last five years, we have really focused on that. we have gotten 10,000 women to enter politics at the local, grass roots, and legislative

level. they are out there and ready to go. this is the generation that can change this culture. half of these women are women of different racial and ethnic groups. 50% of them are under 35. women in america are out there. they are excited and they want to leave. i want to tell you some stuff about them. i am glad we are using popular culture. if you want to change the culture, you have to go to the culture. if we do not dance at this revolution, we are dead. we have been using the film "fair game" to change -- to train women on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty .

where are you out there, no label leaders? [applause] we want to be able to speak in this movement. this is a nonpartisan organization. we should be partners because this is the way we are going to move ourselves for.

i was a different woman. i got into politics at a different time. there were women on the democratic side in the republican side. we had political caucuses together. it was phenomenal. it was a different time. i am lucky because i had a mentor like mary louise smith. when i was coming along politically, she was the republican national committee chair. we were in the iowa legislature. i asked her, why are we in different parties? that was in 1978. that was what was. we are in a different place.

we are 17% of the congressional leaders and 24% of the state legislatures. as we go out there and get these women to come into political life -- we saw one who has organized against -- organized across parties. this is what they want to know. if i am point to sacrifice my life and my family, am i going to be able to make a difference? this is the real question. this is what all of our daughters want to know. if i go into this area, and i going to be able to make a difference? that is why we are here with no labels. it is interesting. when i started doing this work, i read a little bit of work on

megatrends. the author said, year-old business failed. -- the railroad business failed. it failed because they thought they were killing the transportation business. they did not know they were in the transportation business. as long as i have been dealing with political leadership, it has been about changing how we do business. i have thought about that whole thing. i think to myself, even though we are trying to get diverse women into leadership alongside men. by the way, not to take the place of men, but to lead alongside them. it is the best thing we will ever do for men. what he said rang true for me. right now, we are not trying to

get women in for gender equity stake. it is not the business we are in. we are in the transformation business. it is the transformation business, not the political business. i am glad for the gender movement in political leadership and the no labels movement for leadership. we are in the transformation business together. i anticipate a great relationship and one where everybody will actually know how to dance. we will lead side by side with men at last. i thank you so much for participating. [applause] >> please welcome the mayor of newark, new jersey, corey booker.

>> i feel like i need to do a how or dean yell to wake you up -- a howard dean yell to wake you up. can we bring up the house lights? cannot think that a strong group of people cannot change the world because it is the only thing that ever has. i like history going back to the founding of our nation. in our fragile stages, there was one man who said we will either hang together or we will surely hang together. this was not just words for that moment. these are words for our nation. we are not hanging together around our common principles and

our common ideals. there is nothing more toxic to the soul of a nation that when the lines of divide begin to trump the ties that bind. there was a wonderful moment in the year 69 when the city of jerusalem was under attack by the romans. it was said that the roman should remove their armies and lift their siege and they would be able to take the city. the army took that advice and moved back. division started breaking out. they started burning different quarters of the city. in the year 70, the roman army came back and took the city with ease. there is a historical truth. if there is no enemy within, the enemy without can do you no harm. we must accept that the enemy we face is not republican or

democrat. it is the inability of pragmatic people to come together with principles, ideas, and plans to advance this nation for. this is the frustration of our day and age. i see it in new work -- newark all the time. you heard mayor michael bloomberg of here on the stage. he is one of my favorite may years. he gave me the best advice of my life. he said, before you become a major, become a billionaire. [laughter] brilliant advice on their bloomberg's part. he told a bunch of mayors around the country to talk about violence. we have a virginia tech every single day in america. but we fall into these camps that just yell at each other. i remember the decision that

came down saying washington, d.c. could not ban handguns. they said there would be blood rolling down the streets of washington, d.c. i said, look at the data. there was only one should think in my entire first term by someone who had bought a gun legally. that person was a congressional officer who used their side arm to shoot themselves. i listened to my friends on the other side of the political aisle who think that any kind of gun regulation is an assault on the second amendment. mayor bloomberg and his team pulled using a democratic pollster. -- polled using a democratic pollster. we found that 95% of gun owners support sensible legislation that could curtail illegal guns getting into the hands of

criminals. right now in our nation, we have gun shows where criminals can show up with temporary restraining orders taken out on them because they were giving death threats to their spouses. they can walk into a gun show and fill up their truck with weapons and go off to do what they want to do without ever having to show i d -- show identification. we have a debate between protestants and interest groups that cannot -- between partisans and interest groups. now we stand at a precarious place in our nation's history. we look around the globe and from brazil to china and we see countries outpacing us in education and economic growth. this leading democracy born not to fit in but to stand out, this country that was crafted from

the ideals that it like it could be a light to other nations, -- ideals that elijah that it could be a light to other nations. we have choices to make. will we change our dialogue? will compromise not be seen as treason. will reaching across and i'll be applauded and not denigrated? in my city right now, we are realizing that the future in education in america will be minorities. we as a country have come so far that we have not sealed the ration achievement gap. organizations have studied it and said educational attainment can be measured in the trillions of dollars in terms of the impact on gdp if we raise the

graduation rate around america. i reached out to a republican governor who in every way -- we could write a dissertation on our disagreements. the man is a meat eater. i am a vegetarian. he likes the jets. i love the giants. but substantively we said we have got to find a way to end the moral injustice facing our children. we have got to find common ground so we can advance ourselves forward. this will be the test. i was at a party and a friend yelled at me when i gave a speech here in new york. now have come migrate his partner on reentry programs. there is insulation coming from the manhattan institute and others.

someone i came to admire on the other side of the political aisle thought of enterprise zones that are creating wealth all across the globe. no political party has a monopoly on great ideas. in truth, this nation will only go as far as we are willing to take each other. there is no democratic destiny or republican destiny. there is an american destiny. [applause] we know from all our traditions, christian, muslim, jewish, this idea of unity of people. my parents used to tell me african parable'es. they loved their favorite three- word phrase, the hallmark of this nation. e pluribus unum. we have a choice to make. we can answer the call up our

country. we can claim the truth of our nation. we can realize that america is a nation, but it is also a destiny. precious ideas put forth at our founding that are aspirational. but we have to be willing to make the sacrifice. democracy -- we cannot get joined by sitting at home on our couch and looking and -- looking msnbc or fox. this is the test we have before us. we must realize that we as a people of this nation spring deeply from wells of freedom we did not date. we now have an obligation to make a choice, to accept reality as it is our to take responsibility for changing it. i visit schools in newark all

the time, because that is where our future is. i stop and get chills because i listen to our kids. that is where i end. our children every single day, from chicago to san antonio, from florida to alaska, all of our children joined in a common course call into our consciousness. not that we will be a nation of the path and this dandling discourse, but that we will live up to our -- that we will be a nation of dangling discourse, but that we will live up to our potato. they say we are one nation under god individual with liberty and justice for all. may we plan this truth for our life time and make it real for once and for all in all politics. thank you.

[applause] >> please welcome u.s. representative joe sestak from the seventh congressional district in pennsylvania. [applause] >> thank you very much. i was asked to say a few words this afternoon. there are two things i would like to talk about. one is accountability. those of you who know my background, i grew up during the year vietnam war. i never wanted to be in politics. someone told me i was a crappy politician. i am. i wanted to be a decent public service. five years ago, i had the time of my life in the navy.

i got married late in life. that was my personal challenge, getting someone to marry me. at the age of 47, i did get married. then i had my daughter. she was struck at the age of four with a malignant brain tumor. i asked to get out of the needy. i ran for congress -- i asked to get out of the navy. my lessons in politics have come from those 30 years in the u.s. navy. i can remember when i got out and i went to the local county where i was raised and told the local chairman i was going to run for congress. he said, you have to call dccc. i thought that was the delaware county community college. i did not know what d-triple c

was. they told me not to get into the race. i called -- they called back the next day and repeated they did not want me to run. this was my first exposure having changed my registration from being independent for 33 years to that week before i call to the dccc. it harkened to john kennedy's words, sometimes the party asks too much. i ran. by serendipity we won. two years later, we won again. in a district that is 55% republican and 33% democrat. the second time it was $28,000. somehow, we were able to get across the dog is i had learned

in the u.s. navy. -- get across the values i have learned in the u.s. navy. i remember 9/11. there were men and women who worked with me to never got out. i was asked to set up the anti- terrorism unit with the navy. that night when we called together everybody, it was all ideas on the table. two months later, i was on the ground in afghanistan. in those four years as i went around my district, the u.s. navy was on the ground in afghanistan. we do not breed liberals or conservatives. we breed problem solvers, someone who can put their ideas on the table to come up with a pragmatic solution. as some of you know, i was asked

to run against republican senator in our district. i said no because i wanted more time with my daughter. the republican became a democrat. and then the party said, no, we do not want you. what a while, i was about to go back to my affiliation as an independent. i went around the 67 counties to try to decide whether to get in once the party said they had changed their mind. i was taken by how angry and how upset everyone was. they wanted to hold someone accountable. i decided to still run as a democrat.

in the last story i would like to tell you, it is about accountability. when i was asked to speak today about pragmatic leadership -- what i learned in the navy in all those years, there needs to be accountability. i believe in compromise, not a compromise of principles. accountability was taught to me by a 19-year-old kid in an aircraft carrier. i always remember -- or anyone who does not know about the navy, there are 5000 sailors on an aircraft carrier. it average age is 19 and a half.

just like cory booker said, they are tremendous. in an aircraft carrier when they launched a plan, they look you up to a catapult from underneath. it is a big swing -- sling that throws you into the air. when they do, it is the ride of your life. sometimes just before they are about to launch you, they say stop, shut down the engine and get out. no pilot worth their salt will cover shut down their engine until they know they have been under attack from the catapult which is underneath them and they cannot see. if you turn off your engine and you are still sitting on the plane, they can make a mistake and if they push that button, off you go and you are not coming home. all of the sudden, this 19-year-

old kid walks onto the flight deck and goes under the belly of the plan with the pilot cannot see. he detaches the plane from the catapult. that young man or woman walks to the front of the plane. engines are roaring. it is a simple signal like that. and that kid does not move. until that pilot has shut off his or her engine and gotten safely on debt. -- safely on deck. in addition to being able to do a principled compromise, that kid has said, go ahead, trust me. i am irresponsible to having to -- for having to what took you from that catapult.

i am also willing to be accountable. if you shut off your engine and i make a mistake, you are going right through me and i am going overboard. heaven forbid a washington, d.c. -- men and women are actually willing to do a principled compromise. and then be willing to do the right thing in at the conaway and lose their jobs. i followed mccann closely in pennsylvania. said, they are angry and they are upset and wants to hold someone accountable. it wants to believe again. they want to trust again. i do not care if it is someone

with an inner a sticker on his car or someone down a back street of philadelphia where only 28% of african-american males graduate from high school. they are waiting for some practical leaders who lose their jobs over doing what is needed. i hope that peace is part of today's dialogue. thank you very much. >> please welcome the state treasurer of pennsylvania. >> thanks a lot. i have been warned there is a need for speed. i haven't toward my share of compasses. i know we are at the point where

one more speaker could be tent speakers then you need to hear from. i am the state treasurer of pennsylvania. that makes me the highest status speaker up anyone who has come before you today. let me remind you that many of you are among the smartest people in the country thinking about politics, trying to organize this free-floating sense that something is wrong with american political conversation. the work you do is invaluable. i want to urge you to recruit people who are not already famous. this is not just about senators or members of congress or rock star may yours. -- rock star mayors. it is important to start recruiting. it is important to start talking

about issues that seem dull, but are crucial. 15 years from now, we still listen to rock and roll and call each other brother and so forth. but our knees are going and our backs are going. you can assume the problem away all you want, but it will still be there. let's do what they did in the private sector and go to your 401k. here is a news flash for you, 401k did not work. they held their share of private equity people and build a company. the average person graduating with a 401k at the age of 55 has $67,000. i do not think anyone in this room was to hit 65 and lived on social security with 5% of

$67,000. we have a crisis and you are not going to get all the way their if you talk to the already famous. elected officials will care that you care. let me do three quick things. i want to do a confession a reiteration of goals. mo udall used to say we have gotten to that point in the evening where everything has been said, but not everybody has had a chance to say it. the confession is, i did not think this movement, the no labels movement, would be this successful at this point. i am one of the characters who said, if i do not raise my hand to get involved, nobody will. i really believe in this goal, so i will be a bit a -- i will

give it a whirl. i did not think it would be a chance to sign up with some of the most important thought leadership and i would have a chance to thank congressman castle for decades of service. say there was a skeptical former banter capitalist turn state treasurer. i will meet some interesting people and we will give it a whirl. i am pleased to see, a thoughtful people there are and how much attention this is getting. it will be an invaluable response. give yourselves a round of applause. on the war story front, i will give you a few quickies, what

about a republican president, what about a state senator and what about a -- one about a republican president, one about a state senator. he is 87 years old and he owns 3% of morgan stanley. he sets aside money to spend -- to send african-americans to college. the top-tiered kids from the ghettos get scholarships. but the ones one rung down do not. some of you young people in this room will get that will be. i want you to remember this moment. i want you to avoid the third

wife and the buying of turbocharge horses. i want you to do something for other people. the next story is one involving a senator. he and i were hanging out in new york couple of weeks ago. he said the greatest president he had had a chance to spend time with was george bush the father. t of u zero reasons he will be regarded by history as big -- two reasons he will be regarded by history as a good one. he was the only living american who could have put together the alliance to go into iraq the right way and take a lot of political heat for boeing -- for not going in all the way. he said it was great to watch him pulling together the consensus. when they took his phone calls

around the world, they had already broken bread with him. that reminded me that it is and important not just to read teleprompter speeches. it is about doing the work for decades. we are a carbon based life form. every business leader i know says do not or get to invest in relationships of trust. what you are doing here is building relationships with thoughtful people. you do not have to agree with them on every front. the third thing is, i was giving a speech saturday morning. people from pennsylvania get together to celebrate the greatness of pennsylvania by going to new york and spending a lot of money up here. i am doing my fiscal duty by asking all of you to come and spend a couple of hotel nights in philadelphia or scranton, which is pretty.

our common scheme or go to pittsburgh. we just spent a lot of money in this town. you owe us. there is something called the pennsylvania manufacturers association. we had an interesting here because we had arlen specter and the governor. it is 90% republicans in the audience. i was not thrilled to watch the governor-elect, who thinks it is a genius move to save zero taxation. i am all against taxes that cool economic activity. we do not tax the extraction of a natural resources when there are environmental externalities. i am sitting here biting my fist thinking he is not approaching prudent economic policy when we have this huge structural

deficit. i was all for the consensus just cut in washington because i think we are moving forward. i just talked about a hundred of millions of dollars we made in pennsylvania. toward the end, i thought i would throw in something bipartisan. i mentioned the rescue of our tuition account program, bringing it from 70% sign -- to 92% funded. someone walked up to me and said, i know you have been asking me to do something. i will do it. i will tell them we are going to do it. you tell them why it is a good idea. it is an example of how finding a way to reach across the alabama -- reaching across the

aisle can be of value. why are we here? to put aside labels. to make it safer to reach across the aisle. let's be pragmatic. that means if somebody reaches across the aisle and they are not a member of your party, maybe you will find a way to fund raise for them if they are hitting a tough election cycle. we are seeking common-sense solutions. we probably heard that 15 times today. we are also seeking on common sense solution. s. corey booker talked about enterprise zones. that was not a common-sense solution when it was presented. no one was talking about giving scholarships to african- americans when this hedge fund invented that idea. even more in pointed anduncomm --more important than uncommon

sense solutions is a good idea. taxing cigarettes is a good idea. that is an uncommon conversation because people do not understand the notion of extra analyzed causes. we need ssome and common sense and uncommon courage. the kind of common sense that arlen's factor exhibited wendy voted -- when arlen specter exhibited when he voted for the stimulus. we need to remind people that evidence, facts, and ideas that

a. they matter. too often, we set our hair on fire and we put it out. it is important to focus on deficit. it is not right to shut off unemployment benefits. you are going to stimulate the economy with that. it is a hard case to make. we say we are going to attack waste and we turned it into an excuse to attack the least lucky. this is an important time to be thinking about how to balance concerns. i will tell you, nobody i have ever heard of has done this better than david walker, from whom you will hear it in a couple of minutes. he was the controller. he will tell you about his next initiative. he will be working on pension issues. we have a delicate balance of

competing concerns. when we go out there, we have to educate people. politics at its worst is about defeat. at its best, it is about education and consensus. you will make that possible. i salute you all for the time you are taking. thank you for your time and attention. >> please welcome douglas, who served over two that it as the mayor of trenton, new jersey. >> good afternoon. i know you are tired. why doesn't everyone stand up and stretch your legs for a second? my mother was a teacher. i learned that trip from her. there you go. i know you have been listening to a lot of people. first of all, i have been

blessed to be an elected official for 33 years. i know what you are thinking. i was 5 when i got elected. i understand. i was fortunate enough to be in new jersey. i was mayor of my home town for 20 years. why i was so enthusiastic about because as mayor, we do not have the luxury of being so partisan as other people in congress and other places. you saw mayor bill burke, my hero, and -- in some air bloomberg -- you saw mayor bloomberg , my hero and mayor booker.

as i look at was no label is about, it is almost about coming back home. when you are a mayor, you do not have the luxury. on the council of mayors, it is bipartisan. we do not work on what republican mayors what to do or what the democratic mayors want to do. we are in the solving problems business. we work on those solutions. this is an important time in our nation's history. no labels could not happen at a more opportune time. there is a it, presidential election two years from now. there is a movement. you have to continue to move people. we have to move people about common-sense things. i had a colleague who is a republican. i am a democrat. he grew up in the city of

trenton. he would be amazed that i am mentioned his name. he is a republican from the streets of trenton. we grew up together. he served as a republican on the board. i was a democrat. because we wanted to help the city of trenton, we can to death for the good of our county. as a result of it, -- we came together for the good of our county. we built buildings because we work together. it takes courage. you know that. i can remember going to suburban areas in our county and people would tell him -- he became the county executive and i became the mayor -- they would say we are for building a baseball stadium in this county, but not

in trenton. we will never get out of there alive. we will be killed if we go to trenton. his own republican party was telling him this. he had the courage of his convictions to see what it meant foreign economies and businesses. he said it is not in trenton, it is not going to happen. that takes courage what it is a republican or democrat. that is what it is about, common sense solutions. i understand people are mad. people have lost their jobs and their pensions. they are losing their homes and the college tuition for their own children. people are taking advantage of that in partisan ways. it is time for us. it is time for us and no labels to have a seat at the table. if you do not have a seat at the table, you will be on the menu. for too long, the things we wanted to say and do for this

country have been on the menu. it is time to act. i want to say this last thing. one of the reporters said, do you think this will make a difference? will no labels make a difference? will you and i and millions of others make a difference? i will tell you this story. one person can make a difference. as they are, i know this all well and good. -- as a mayor, i know it's all well and good. we are in the place where the rubber meets the road. you go to the beauty parlors, the barber shops, the grocery stores, the churches, the bars. you go everywhere. i have to tell you. one day i was going to the supermarket. you have to be careful. sometimes i feel i am sleepy --

i am sneaky around when i am buying certain things. heaven forbid i will buy black plaid roach killer. you have to send other people to get that. people look in your basket to see what you are buying. this one day, i am getting ready to bring out and a -other black- another black ball headed guy looks into my basket and look at the razor's i bought and he said, are they any good. i said, they are working pretty good for me. he goes back and exchanged his blade and got the kind of played i used. i said, that is really something. obviously, if i can influence what goes on top of a man's head, i think i can certainly influence what goes in it.

i think we all have the opportunity and the challenge to make sure that what we are talking about to move our country forward and to have the dialogue going gets into people's heads from the grassroots level where it is going to be successful. dealing with the people on the grass-roots level up. thank you, good luck, and let's keep pushing. >> please join me in welcoming the former founder of the take back america initiative, the honorable david walker. >> thank you. it is actually a comptroller general of the united states. there is a little difference there. this is an historic moment. all of us have gathered here today in order to create a new

movement for we the people. our country is at a critical crossroads and our political system is broken. 221 years ago, the american republic was founded. at its conception, our nation was based on a few fundamental and timeless principles and values. they included limited government, opportunity, personal responsibility, a limited debt, savings, and stewardship. at the beginning of the republic citizens governed by who left their occupations for a tiberi. -- for a temporary time to make the concept of the united states, alive. where do we stand today? yes, america is currently the superpower.e

as a nation and a people, we have strayed from the principles and values that made us great. we face a range of known and growing sustainability challenges that literally threatened our country and our family's future. today, we are also increasingly governed by career politicians who may or may not have had a meaningful job in the world before they were elected to office. once they get to washington, they definitely are not in the real world. to many of which all too often focus on the short-term interest of their political career, their party, or their individual state and community rather than the overall interest of the united states. most of us here today and most of the american people are not pleased with the status quo. we want to help change the nation to help create a better

future. we are a mainstream of america. we represent the civil center and the majority in the metal. our displeasure is not based on a particular party or person. there is plenty of blame to pass around. our concern is based upon a system that focuses on too much on politics and not enough on progress. what about our nation's finances? the plain and simple truth is that our country's financial condition is worse than advertised. we are headed for a fiscal abyss at breakneck speed. we must change course before we go over a cliff. changing course is also essential if we want to keep america great and the american dream alive for future generations. let me briefly review a few fiscal facts. at the outset of our republic in 1789, spending was less than 2% of the economy.

today, the federal government is 24% of the economy and growing. state and local debt is rapidly approaching 100% of our economy. if you look at the two data, you will find out that the total debt and percentage of the economy is already worse than ireland, the united kingdom, spain, portugal, and we are not that many years away from greece. for almost 200 years, the united states did not run a sizeable deficit unless we were at war, i mean a declared war. in depression or recession or face a significant national emergency. today, too many politicians say it is ok to run deficits even in peacetime, even when the economy is strong. this is not a responsible course and a philosophy. we have more than double our

nation's debt in the past 10 years and we are on track to double it again in the next 10 years. we have gone to the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debt toward nation. half of our debt is owned by foreign lenders. this combined with low savings rates and the reduction of investments in the future has served to compromise the future for our young people. to their credit, the young people -- the american people know we are living beyond our means. they are the leading indicators. it is the politicians who are the lagging indicators. the commission set up by president obama had 11 members that voted board tough choices. there was a so-called deal done by the current leadership in washington where by the so-

called compromise in bald note stuffed toys is whatsoever with regard -- compromise involved no tough choices whatsoever. not a dime of spending cuts. nothing to do with the structural deficit. people called this a compromise? what kind of compromise is that. what kind of planet are these people on? it is important that the commission's work be put to good use. it is critically important that we the people make sure it is. i can tell you from my travel to 47 states. the people can handle the truth. they did their -- they deserve the truth, not rhetoric. [applause] given the importance of the fiscal responsibility issue, it needs to receive priority

attention. the plain and simple truth is that the toys as we make or fail to make on these -- the choices we make our failed to make will determine if our future is better than our past. everything must be on the table. spending cuts, tax reform with additional revenue. those on the far left to say we do not need to reform social security are wrong. they do not have a credible plan to address the deficit. those on the right which we can solve our problems without raising taxes are wrong. they, too, to not have a plan to put us on a prudent plan. it is time for our elected leaders to develop a plan where the math works. all that is needed to encourage our e elected officials to address this sooner rather than later -- the current our elected

officials to address this sooner than later -- in order to make that happen, we need to coerce people to work together and across the aisle. -- we need to encourage people to work together and across the aisle. [applause] as we look to the future, we must not forget our past. america was founded by individuals who pledge their life, liberty, and property to create what has become the greatest country in the history of mankind. they had a dream. they and subsequent generations of americans were successful beyond their wildest imagination. today, we are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren at record rates pylori -- while reducing the

investment in their future. this is not just irresponsible. it is immoral. it must not be allowed to continue. [applause] in closing, our future is threatened by a range of unsustainable policies and a broken political system. we are here today as the founders of a new movement designed to shock that political system in order to get america back on track. in doing so, we must remember the no labels model. not left, not right. follower. we must remember the concepts of this scope responsibility and justice and they are not mutually exclusive -- the concepts of responsibility and justice. they are not mutually exclusive.

our nation's founders and families deserve no less. remember, not left, not right, forward. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming no labels' down the leader. >> you know who the most popular speaker at an event like this is? most-- the last one. i came here today with a lot of good friends. i am going home tonight with a lot of new friends. darnell, i know you are here somewhere. there you are. i will go home with the story i have heard and the motivation i have heard.

i am a texan and we texans like to take credit for something. most of them we learned. some of them we haven't. there are some things we have not taken credit for for a really long time. lyndon baines johnson passed the civil rights bill. we learned that victory. he did not pass it by himself. there was a republican from illinois who partnered with that great texas present to bring about profound and moral change to this country. with five years ago when i got into politics, i got into it because i had an agenda. i still do. i got into it because i loved the adventure. i got into it because i was a little competitive. today, i do it for my two kids. for joe and me, our job is to see their future.

after being with all of you, i know we will see their future. i know i can count on you to go home and make a difference in a way that is going to help me. joe and i can do it alone. it is going to take all of us. i am so proud to be part of a movement that is going to take -- going to make a difference for my kids. thank you and safe travels going home. ♪ >> the list includes current chairman michael steele. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]